Slashdot Mirror


Longhorn to be Released in 2006, Sans WinFS

skillio writes "Everyone's favorite OS maven, Bill Gates, announced a release date for Longhorn on Friday. He confirms what many had suspected - Microsoft will attempt to complete this release in calendar year 2006. The most notable element of this announcement was Gates' admission that WinFS, Microsoft's next-generation file system, would not be complete in time for this release - surprising, since this was the most hyped component of the next iteration of Windows."

440 comments

  1. Good deal for Microsoft by weave · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, I'm so glad we switched to an annual assurance type plan where we pay an annual fee which gives us the right for all upgrades at no additional cost. Now they have little incentive to bring out upgrades since they will get that revenue stream regardless, no matter what.

    Actually, it might be a blessing. The pressure on IT to roll out new versions puts a real burden on us. We just got XP and 2003 server rolled out everywhere and I have a feeling we are *way* ahead of most other places.

    1. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by BoldAC · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'll get all your upgrades anyway.

      Many of the components in longhorn will be rolled out as individual services prior to the official release.

      (Of course, Microsoft will package the official longhorn release with a few bells and whisltes to grab consumer interests.)

      SP2 is a great example of this. The pop-up blocker and buffer overrun protection were all original longhorn ideas.

    2. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by weave · · Score: 3, Insightful
      True, but we would have gotten all of that with an old fashioned perpetual license. I believe the assurance plans estimated savings based on a new release (that costs money) every two years.

      If there's a 5 year gap between OS releases, the finance people might start to question our decision to "take the easy way out" and go for the annual fee, which is a killer btw...

    3. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by afd8856 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > The pop-up blocker and buffer overrun protection were all original longhorn ideas.

      This is yet another proof of how hard it has become for them to upgrage Internet Explorer. Adding just one feature requires an entire new operating system. Fortunatly, for SP2, Bill has outsourced the job. I'm sure 99% sure that the pop-up blocker in SP2 is stolen from Mozilla. Horray for open source!

      (Just joking)

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    4. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by doctormetal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is yet another proof of how hard it has become for them to upgrage Internet Explorer. Adding just one feature requires an entire new operating system. Fortunatly, for SP2, Bill has outsourced the job. I'm sure 99% sure that the pop-up blocker in SP2 is stolen from Mozilla. Horray for open source!

      (Just joking)


      The idea of the popup blocker and the tabbed browsing were not their own idea. Competitors like opera and mozilla based browsers (mozilla, firefox and others) had those, so IE must have it to keep up.

    5. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Have+Blue · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought the buffer overrun protection was AMD's idea, with the NX page flag.

    6. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by justsomebody · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, but... you are actualy happy you pay more for less???

      Either that or my brain-calc is broken.

      Cost Calculation:
      Updates for XP - $0
      Updates for your server - cost $0
      You are happy that there's no new releases of software - so if you wouldn't buy that software cost would be $0

      But you are happy that you are paying annual fee??? With that thinking in mind you'll soon be outsourced

      We just got XP and 2003 server rolled out everywhere and I have a feeling we are *way* ahead of most other places.


      I have all places still running Win2000 server (those few that still use Windows for server and all behind firewall), and it does it's job as it should. Tested version of 2003 didn't make enough progress to replace thing that worked for so long in such pleasurable manner. How do you define your *AHEAD*???

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    7. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Curtman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Prediction.. In a year and a half, Microsoft announces the real name of Longhorn:

      Windows XP SP3

      If XP is going to get Longhorn Technologies, and Longhorn isn't going to get the rest (best?) of the "Longhorn Technologies", then thats all it is. A new service pack, just like XP was.

    8. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by the_maddman · · Score: 1

      by Have Blue (616) Alter Relationship on Saturday August 28, @08:46AM (#10096257) (http://slashdot.org/)
      I thought the buffer overrun protection was AMD's idea, with the NX page flag.

      Yup it was, AMD's X86_64 arch is the first to support the NX page flag. To bad MS screwed it up in SP2 and is now recommending people with Athlon 64's don't upgrade to SP2. See the story here:
      http://news.com.com/Windows+update+harbors+AMD+con flict/2100-1016_3-5326707.html?tag=st_lh

    9. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Homology · · Score: 3, Informative


      I thought the buffer overrun protection was AMD's idea, with the NX page flag.



      NX (No eXecute) bit for CPU has been around for a while (for Alpha, and Sun's SPARC, for instance), and is not an AMD invention. On the other hand, AMD should be given credit for introducing such a security featuer in their new CPU. Intel has steadfastly refuced to implement such security features on x86, until forced by AMD.

    10. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Funny, but in a sad, the-check-is-in-your-mouth-and-I-won't-come-in-you r-mail sort of way.

    11. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      I would settle for standards support (PNG transparency, CSS 2), but hey, if they want to compete with the new browsers, what about skinning, irc client (is microsoft chat, the one with funny faces, still available? :) ), ad-block, mouse gestures, etc?

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    12. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we pay an annual fee...at no additional cost

      Wow that's a neat trick. If your company ever wants to increase revenue through traffic tolls, I've got several bridges I could sell them.

    13. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now they have little incentive to bring out upgrades since they will get that revenue stream regardless, no matter what.

      Tell me about it. I work for a small/medium business, and we got burned on SQL Server 2000. The single CPU license with Software Assurance was like six grand, or 50% more than the license without SA.

      Microsoft (or one of their contractors) called us and asked about renewing our various SA agreements. The droid was seriously confused that I didn't want to take advantage of such a good deal after having been burned once already.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    14. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Funny for you too, but in a what-was-that-incoherent-babbling sort of way.

    15. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      That's not really true. MS made that recommendation for a small class of users who have installed a particular, broken mpeg miniport driver included in a third party product. Other users are encouraged to leave the protection on.

      The problem is that the driver triggers an NX fault on startup, and so the system can't boot. That the same thing, exactly, as a kernel oops during the device scan, and it isn't Microsoft's fault.

    16. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to AMD, a lot of the design behind x86-64 was done in collaboration with Dave Cutler and other Microsoft OS Engineers.

    17. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by westlake · · Score: 1

      MS Chat survives though the MS servers were closed in '01.
      Laugh if you will, but people still create new comic chat art. Comic Chat Resources I suppose there is something to be said for a jargon-free IRC client and MS Chat (which can be used as a plain-vanilla IRC client, of course) is available in 24 languages, including Korean, Chinese and Japanese.

    18. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by eidechse · · Score: 1

      A new service pack, just like XP was

      Incorrect. XP was the first release since 95 that had major internal changes. XP was the first consumer edition based on the NT kernel.

    19. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      Windows 2000 - NT5.0
      Windows XP 2002 - NT5.1
      Windows XP/Server 2003 - NT5.2

      The parent's statement was pointing out that MS acknowledges that theres not as much of a difference between windows 2000 and windows XP as there was between windows NT 4.0 and windows 2000. Of course, the NT kernel is far better than the 9x so as far as a "consumer" OS it is a major jump, but from windows 2000 there aren't that many changes.

    20. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by eidechse · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll buy that, but I got the impression that the OP was referring specifically to XP. XP was the first consumer branch of the NT line. It did include a point rev of the kernel, but it's not directly in the 'server' path. As such it's the first consumer edition that had a large internal change since 95.

      Sure, if you'd abandoned the 9x consumer line and had been running 2k it wasn't that much of a change. But that wasn't the situation for most consumers.

    21. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you e poof?

    22. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No execute is much older than that.

      Several of the free unices have had it for years I believe, simply using read-only segments on intel. Intel has had segments since what? The 386? Or even the 286?

    23. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The pop-up blocker and buffer overrun protection
      > were all original longhorn ideas.

      No. Wrong. They were ideas of someone else that MS has scheduled for a few years hence.

      Now it realises that it is falling well behind the curve and if it doesn't get these out to its customers soon then it will lose those customers forever to someone who will give them those features (such as Mozilla/Linux/IBM/AMD).

      Same with Longhorn. If it fails to make 2006 then much of its customers will be on Linux. So it has to drop the hard bits to something out the door. Also the corporates are asking why they should buy a 3 year upgrade license when they won't get an upgrade.

    24. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by mikefe · · Score: 1

      I believe read only segments are for the VM so that it can get a page fault when there is an access and know what parts of memory have been used recently.

      Read-only doesn't prevent execution.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    25. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      "The idea of the popup blocker and the tabbed browsing were not their own idea."

      The first tabbed browser I ever used was on Windows 3.1 and was written for GNN, AOL's attempt at an ISP. It wasn't until Mozilla that I saw this feature make a come-back. (The GNN browser still did it better.)

    26. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by evil_one666 · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm so glad we switched to an annual assurance type plan where we pay an annual fee which gives us the right for all upgrades at no additional cost. Now they have little incentive to bring out upgrades since they will get that revenue stream regardless, no matter what.
      erm- this is warped logic. If you are paying a fat annual to microsoft while getting dramatically less versions of their updated software then you sir (or more likely your boss) are/is getting ripped off. You do know that patches and upgrades to microsoft products are free to the general public?
      We just got XP and 2003 server rolled out everywhere and I have a feeling we are *way* ahead of most other places.
      I am afraid that if you have just rolled out XP and 2003 server everywhere then you are not "ahead" of anybody.
    27. Re:Good deal for Microsoft by weave · · Score: 1
      It's hard to push sarcasm in writing. "so glad we .... " I meant to imply that we are getting ripped off. Paying the annual rate means Microsoft has less incentive to upgrade. If we went perpetual, I'd have no software upgrade costs for at least two more years.

      As for XP and 2003 server rolled out everywhere, that's to all client desktops (XP) and 2003 server on all Windows servers. From talking to peers at other locations, we are way ahead of others. I'm talking big shops with thousands of PCs and dozens of servers.

  2. the later the better by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    since that file system will probably break compatibility with everything non-windows it's delay is good for everyone.

    I wonder if they will decide to use it to lock out any third party application providers they dont like.

    1. Re:the later the better by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it wouldn't break things as it's going to be in practice an addon to the existing system.

      (like .net runtime or whatever)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:the later the better by kc01 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Considering how widely samba has been implemented, I'd have to suspect that even if longhorn WERE to come out on time, adoption wouldn't be as fast as Microsoft would expect (and prefer) if it broke functionality.

      An interesting dilemma for Microsoft- Do they continue their typical practice of changing technology to keep people upgrading, or do they recognize that this one might actually delay (or even reduce) revenues and not change current compatibilities?

    3. Re:the later the better by LO0G · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, lets get this straight, once and for all - WinFS IS NOT A NEW FILESYSTEM!

      It's a set of technologies that allow you to store metadata in a SQL-like database, and query for that information.

      Think of it as content indexing on steroids.

      So you winamp album metadata could be put in WinFS and then winamp (or WMP, or Soniq, or iTunes) could build virtual playlists from that metadata.

      Or your picture keywords could be put in and you'd be able to search that metadata using a single common API.

      It's NOT a new filesystem.

    4. Re:the later the better by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, just like SP2 wasn't going to break anything either.

    5. Re:the later the better by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why is it called "FS" ??????????

    6. Re:the later the better by cortana · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Marketing. WinFS sounds sexy. It will get the Windows geeks talking about the revolutionary never-before-seen features, and when the Windows geeks are lusting over the next version of Windows, they 'ain't convertin' to Linux.

      It's the old bait and switch. Now that WinFS has served its purpose, it's being moved back to the _next_ version of Windows after Longhorn. But don't worry, Longhorn+1 will be the best version of Windows EVER! It has this revolutionary new filesystem, WinFS. It will also be faster, easier to use, more compatible and more secure! Why risk changing to another operating system when the next version of Windows will be everything you have ever wanted, AND MORE?

    7. Re:the later the better by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Informative

      Supposedly it now stands for "Future storage". Just like NT and .NET once stood for something and then got real nebulous (NT was once "new technology", while .NET was going to be used on everything from servers to toilet paper).

    8. Re:the later the better by cpsc2005 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was just the marketing. NT is rumoured to stand for "NTen" the code name of the Intel i860 chup, the original target platform for Windows NT.

      Oficially though, it's just 'NT' The letters according to Microsoft mean nothing, except what you wish to embelish upon it.

    9. Re:the later the better by TheUser0x58 · · Score: 3, Funny
      WinFS sounds sexy.

      Dude, did you really just say that??

      --
      -- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
    10. Re:the later the better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My take on this is that drive behind WINFS is to compete with Oracle. Microsoft wants to create a compelling reason for corporations to use their data base products. And what a great way when the users desktop uses the same technology as their data base products.

      One issue for end users is that they generally don't have enough duplicative data to make this a compelling solution for them.

      Better search tools for the existing informatin would be of more benefit.

      __Pat

    11. Re:the later the better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Supposedly it now stands for "Future storage". Just like NT and .NET once stood for something and then got real nebulous (NT was once "new technology", while .NET was going to be used on everything from servers to toilet paper).

      I think that's still the plan for .NET. And it's basically the reality with Java.

    12. Re:the later the better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And it's basically the reality with Java.

      Except that java only runs on like 4 platforms. It's the least universal language in existence.

    13. Re:the later the better by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're absolutely right.

      This has been Bill Gate's marketing approach since Day One at Microsoft.

      Read the biographies of him. They say the exact same thing. Every time Microsoft customers get antsy, he comes out with "Stay the course! The next one will be dynamite!"

      I think George Bush learned it from him. Iraq didn't turn out well? Well, relax, Iran will be much better! And wait until you see North Korea!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    14. Re:the later the better by xigxag · · Score: 1

      Marketing. WinFS sounds sexy.

      Methinks Microsoft has a problem here. The only people who "WinFS" could possibly sound sexy to are slashgeeks, but they hate Microsoft, so, er, how's this supposed to work?

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    15. Re:the later the better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot. nobody knows what NT stood for if anything. it was NEVER documented in anything MS released.

      many sources conclude that NT stood for N10. N10 was an Intel i860 RISC emulator that Windows NT was built on.

      makes a lot more sense and explains why the NT splash screen saying "built on NT (new technology/N10) technology"

      you be the judge :rolleyes: .NET on the other hand stood for absolutely NOTHING. that is why MS killed it. they were trying to market a popular term during the .COM era but gave it absolutely no meaning whatsoever. consumers/investors got confused because MS had no clear definition of what .NET was supposed to be.

    16. Re:the later the better by lbonser · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But what I can't figure out is why it's taking so long. Relational databases are nothing new and revolutionary. Nor is content indexing. As WinFS is still NTFS at it's core, with a bunch of new APIs, it shouldn't be the big showstopper it appears to be. And the other thing I can't figure is: why bother? There is already meta data fields in NTFS and very few people use them. And it seems that only a handful of software publishers both putting more than the most rudimentary data in them. Many of the apps that would benefit from stuff like this, already have their own meta data search engines built in. So why clutter up the OS with this?

    17. Re:the later the better by Net_Wakker · · Score: 1
      Ok, lets get this straight, once and for all - WinFS IS NOT A NEW FILESYSTEM!
      Maybe youd better tell Jim Allchin that. Because according to him it is: In an interview Friday with CNET News.com, Allchin explained that the decision announced Friday to strip an advanced file system dubbed WinFS from Longhorn was made to ensure that the new OS could be shipped in 2006.
    18. Re:the later the better by LO0G · · Score: 1

      According to Helen Custers (who worked on the team) in her book Inside Windows NT, it's "New Technology".

    19. Re:the later the better by LO0G · · Score: 1

      That's a quote from a reporter at news.com.com. It's not a quote from Jim Alchin.

    20. Re:the later the better by puddpunk · · Score: 1

      Ok, here we go!

      x86 Linux, x86 Solaris, x86 BSD, Sparc Solaris, MacOS, x86 Windows, Symbian OS (mobile phones), Palm Pilots (Superwaba runs on mine!)... J2ME also runs on smartcards, pagers, set-top boxes.

      Also, please note this CPU that executes Java bytecode as it's instruction language.

    21. Re:the later the better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "NT" stands for "Northern Telecom"! They licensed Windows from Microsoft, worked on it then Microsoft bought it back. I know a teacher at a local technical college (IvyTech State College in Sellersburg, Indiana) who has a manual for it that lists "NT" as meaning "Northen Telecom". The "New Technology" is a way of covering that up!

    22. Re:the later the better by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      .NET was going to be used on everything from servers to toilet paper).


      I don't know about servers, but I'm sure .NET will stil work fine with toilet paper.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    23. Re:the later the better by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      In defense of Microsoft, they've stated right up that it would break things; between the firewall and the NX bit, things(largely poorly coded things) were destined to break. They've done a good deal to prevent breakage, but anyone caught by surprise if something breaks, has bigger problems.

    24. Re:the later the better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's part of the name, which is recursive:
      WINFS = WinFS Is Not a File System

    25. Re:the later the better by slapout · · Score: 1

      "It's a set of technologies that allow you to store metadata in a SQL-like database, and query for that information."

      We already have SQL-like databases. So why do we need this?

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    26. Re:the later the better by LO0G · · Score: 1

      Shipped in the OS? Tightly integrated with the shell? Available in a set of well documented APIs that are available as a part of the platform?

      Cool. Where do I get it?

    27. Re:the later the better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said "things(largely poorly coded things) were destined to break."

      Office 2003 has been having problems with Windows XP SP2. Can/will Microsoft admit that their software is largely poorly coded?

  3. I am just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Am I the only one who thinks that "Longhorn" doesn't sound like an operating system but rather a name for a porn star? I can already see the advertisements: "Before the new Microsoft OS goes Gold, install Long Horn Silver!" In the context of men wearing tight MSN butterfly-man suits, it seems somehow appropriate...

    1. Re:I am just curious... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Longhorn almost certainly won't be the name, XP iirc was codnamed whistler, they use the names of places near redmond in seatle apparently.

    2. Re:I am just curious... by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not as bad as "Mozilla", which sounds like a kids' cartoon or breakfast cereal... especially when you consider "Mozilla" is the final name, and Longhorn is just a development code name.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:I am just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as bad as "Mozilla", which sounds like a kids' cartoon or breakfast cereal... especially when you consider "Mozilla" is the final name, and Longhorn is just a development code name.

      Mozilla was kind of unfortunate a name, unfortunately. But what about Phoenix or Firebird? What about Hotfoxy? Those are one sexy names!

    4. Re:I am just curious... by mqRakkis · · Score: 1

      The names were explained on the earlier windows story today.

    5. Re:I am just curious... by nkh · · Score: 1

      Maybe this will refresh your memory. It's a nerds' movie, a classic everyone should have seen...

    6. Re:I am just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longhorn almost certainly won't be the name, XP iirc was codnamed whistler, they use the names of places near redmond in seatle apparently.

      Is there a Chicago, Washington near Seattle? (Windows 95)

    7. Re:I am just curious... by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, they're both American cities. Didn't you know?

      --
      Lalala
    8. Re:I am just curious... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Ski mountains actually.

    9. Re:I am just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even a good porn name. They should have used something like "Long Dong Silver" or something. Creativity people!

    10. Re:I am just curious... by fiddlesticks · · Score: 4, Informative

      Q: what's with the code-name Whistler'?
      A: They were "Odyssey," "Neptune," "Mars", and before that they were using city names "Chicago," "Detroit," "Memphis". But now they've turned to mountain names: Whistler and Blackcomb are popular ski resorts a few hours from Seattle, located in British Columbia.

    11. Re:I am just curious... by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, me I'm waiting for shepzilla, or curlyzilla...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    12. Re:I am just curious... by CelloJake · · Score: 1

      At least they didn't call it Aggie.

      -Jacob

    13. Re:I am just curious... by Tobias+Luetke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whistler (canada, BC) is the ski resort of choice for microsoft. No surprise here its probably the best in the world. Their code names are almost always based on the Whistler region. XP was Whistler, Blackcomb (neightbour village) was their backoffice server and at the foot of the main whistler slope is the Longhorn bar.

    14. Re:I am just curious... by rlmassie · · Score: 1

      I don't know, to me it sounds like a lizard who sells beer at everybody's favorite springfield bar.

    15. Re:I am just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid Longhorns... As an Aggie, I am glad that Microsoft didn't name their software the same as us. Do you really want that name defaming you?

    16. Re:I am just curious... by kgp · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, not near Redmond (unless you consider B.C. Canada near Redmond).

      Whistler is a ski resort in BC.

      Longhorn is a bar in Whistler, BC.

      Popular with the execs on the project, apparently.

    17. Re:I am just curious... by Diabolus777 · · Score: 1

      And Longhorn is a bar located right at the bottom of Whistler mountain. Just when you come down from skiing, you can take off your skis, take 10 steps forward and get a few brewskies

      --
      We should have been
      So much more by now
      Too dead inside
      To even know the guilt
    18. Re:I am just curious... by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      before that they were using city names "Chicago," "Detroit," "Memphis"

      The one before "Memphis" was "Cairo". The link being that Memphis is also in Egypt. Of course, somewhere along the way, it seems to have been mistaken for the one in TN, so the next cities were all US.

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    19. Re:I am just curious... by JudeanPeople'sFront · · Score: 1

      Back then, Mozilla was meant to be the killer of the free Mosaic browser. Hence, the name of the project. Netscape was founded by one of the creators of Mosaic with the idea of embracing and extending this new exciting opportunity :)

    20. Re:I am just curious... by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      Gad, it's bad enough NAFTA is sending all our manufacturing and IT jobs out of the country, but we're outsourcing code names as well?

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
  4. Stepwise by BoldAC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Likely each component will be rolled out seperately... and then it'll all be bundled (without the new file system) for the official longhorn release.

    Of course, they will package the new release with new bells and whistles to give people a reason to upgrade... but most function will be able to be obtained before the official "longhorn" release.

    SP2, for example, contains several aspects of longhorn that were forced to the users sooner. Examples are the pop-up blocker and the protected memory to prevent buffer overruns.

    1. Re:Stepwise by BoldAC · · Score: 2, Informative

      woah... sorry to duplicate. I kept getting errors when I originally tried to post this so I thought that it didn't go through.

      Anyway, to keep from wasting space... here is the original slashdot article about longhorn meeting XP

      Here's an article discussing that several aspects of longhorn are actually in SP2.

    2. Re:Stepwise by basics · · Score: 1

      Likely each component will be rolled out seperately...

      Who better to beta-test the new software than exhisting customers.

  5. No Avalon either by goMac2500 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yep. Avalon, the new-fangled window manager was also cut for the final release. Windows version Copland?

    1. Re:No Avalon either by cdelta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why don't you read the article?

      "Longhorn will include new graphics technology, code-named Avalon, to present advanced graphics effects and three- dimensional images."

    2. Re:No Avalon either by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Grandparent poster may have been referring to this, regardless of what CNN says.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:No Avalon either by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

      Or this: http://news.com.com/Microsoft+overhauls+Longhorn+p lans/2100-1016_3-5326850.html?tag=nefd.top

    4. Re:No Avalon either by dnaboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I think this is a case of RTOFA (O for other). At least currently, though likely to change soon, the last article on the main slashdot site is about how Windows XP and 2003 are slated to get Avalon and Indigo as part of interim releases, since Longhorn is now not slated til 2006.

    5. Re:No Avalon either by goMac2500 · · Score: 0

      Whoops, that article doesn't say the same thing. Karma hit for me! Yay! :)

    6. Re:No Avalon either by doctormetal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doesn't this all sound a lot like whistler (released as Windows XP)?
      A lot of these features were also announced to be part of that OS but were removed in the beta versions. Some did not even make it to any beta version. WinFS was even announces to be part of Win NT 4.0, so they should have a lot of time to complete it.

      If all these stuff will be removed in longhorn, will it just be 'Windows XP Second Edition'?

    7. Re:No Avalon either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, Yeah, removed from Longhorn, but added to XP. Get it, straight from the mouth of the VP of the developer division.


      Fine, he doesn't give a date on when Avalon will ship, but releasing it for XP users is a good thing.

  6. It was a misprint of the Gates' quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    He actually said 12006. Quite a few service packs away.

  7. vapour, where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    news of further delays is a kind of marketing in itself. logic of anticipation. lets just call it "Windows Stillborn" and forget about it.

  8. DNF next? by Dreadlord · · Score: 2, Funny

    First it was HL2, Longhorn is second, what next? DNF??

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
    1. Re:DNF next? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      By [insert almighty creators' name here] lets hope so! *crosses fingers overly enthousiast*

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:DNF next? by Prod_Deity · · Score: 1

      "First it was HL2, Longhorn is second, what next? DNF??"
      I was just thinking the same about Hurd.

  9. Re:IT the movie. by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Does that mean that 3 out of 10 nerds have never been exposed to the sun?

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  10. Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by xjimhb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What was it - Cairo? Chicago? They ended up dumping them, and putting the "doable" stuff into their next "mainstream" product.

    My guess is that WinFS was turning out to be one of those grand and glorious ideas that was falling short of "doable" - at least any time short of 2041.

    1. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by DJ+Rubbie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I think Reiser4 and a database plugin will be able to do what WinFS can, and more.

      --
      Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null
    2. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicago was NT4. Cairo was Win2k. I don't think either of those projects were "dumped".

    3. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by nuggetman · · Score: 3, Informative

      What was it - Cairo? Chicago? They ended up dumping them, and putting the "doable" stuff into their next "mainstream" product.

      Cairo and Chicago both became mainstream products.

      Neptune (WinME successor, for consumers) and Odyssey (2000 successor, for business) were merged together to create Whistler, which wound up becoming Windows XP.

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    4. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Cairo was supposed to have the equivalent of WinFS, as were several other releases... but it keeps slipping out to never-never-land... So it's funny to watch it slip away once again. Along with Avalon and lots of other "revolutionary" features. But instead the "thunks" keep on getting added in, making the OS more tangled and more unstable.

      It's tough enough for the Linux Kernel to evolve when it's got a fairly clean API between it and everything else, but with all the creeping featureitis and stuffing of user level features into the kernel that happens in Windows, when are they going to put the foot down and realize they're the cause of their own problems? Ie. that they're blocking their own evolution. But their culture is now so deeply steeped in the 'religion' of 'thunking" and "push it out the door" that they now have to deal with a nearly insurmountable corporate cultural inertia. One begins to question whether they are actually capable of change.

      They keep talking about "security" but then letting stuff into the kernel that shouldn't be there. Thus they are the victims of their own process. Unfortunately so are the rest of us, whether we use Windows or not... The more they 'change', the more they stay the same...

    5. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      Cairo became Windows 2000? Where's my "Object Filesystem", then? How about the distributed filesystem? (I'm aware of the 'dfs' MSFT has in Win2k -- but it's just a CIFS naming and redirection service, not a Distributed Filesystem).

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    6. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this imaginary database plugin will do what WinFS can, in theory -- except you don't know what that is yet, so you'll have to wait until Microsoft releases something before someone can figure out if it really can be ripped off or not. (And even then you'll only have a handful of commandline tools and no grandma-friendly gui shell integration.)

      Or, more likely, the Unix Taliban will continue using grep and locate and completely fail to understand what WinFS is really doing. If you really have issues with searchability and data manipulation, don't ask a Linux guy.

    7. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by GrassMunk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      and the chances of installing windows on a Reiser4 FS is? 0%? Gotchya

    8. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would actually give 100%.
      Install Linux on Reiser4 FS, then install VMware.
      Gotcha!

    9. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Cairo [microsoft.com] and Chicago [microsoft.com] both became mainstream products.

      Cairo is still not delivered, and now is pushed back beyond 2007.

      Chicago was stripped down to get it out the door as Win95. In Q3 1994 Bill Gates is reported to have said that "Chicago will be 'out by Christmas', but December may be delayed a few months."

      Between November 94 until August 95 was the days of 'Windows for Warehouses' as copies of WFW 3.11 piled up in the distribution channels while customers delayed all purchasing.

      Chicago wasm't all it was supposed to be, it was still on top of DOS, though they had tried to hide this.

    10. Re:Reminds me of several previous MS efforts by idlemachine · · Score: 1
      You know, maybe other people posting here actually spent some time researching what WinFS is allegedly able to do...god knows there have been enough articles detailing it.

      You, on the other hand, seem to prefer wasting your time on being an opinionated asshole. Good luck with that.

  11. Touchy, Touchy, Touchy, Mon Capitan. by rssrss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Allchin: Don't call it 'Shorthorn'

    Well, now that you mention it. It seems like an apt moniker.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    1. Re:Touchy, Touchy, Touchy, Mon Capitan. by Bin_jammin · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't have called it shorthorn. I never would have even thought of it, but now that I've heard it, it won't leave me alone. I read longhorn, I think shorthorn. I think a star is stillborn...

  12. Have a Microsoft Night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you remember back on July 12, 1979 at Chicago's Comiskey Park when radio jock Steve Dahl rode the rising setiment of anti-disco and held a promotional where if you brought a disco record to the game to be destroyed at half-time you would get an admission for only $0.98?

    It got me thinking about a little project I think would be at the very least, ammusing.

    Something like, a cordinated anti-MS day in about a year when LUGS all around the world get together on a certain day and destroy MS software as well as MS effigees to protest our discontent. I'm picturing piles of old win3.11 floppies and cds of 9x, NT, office, games, books, and hardware billowing thick tenticles of black smoke, smearing the sky with... I don't want to pollute the environment with smoke, especially with MS's taint, so make that piles of stuff to be blown up with demolitions and shattered with small arms fire.

    Then we could build a huge effigee of Bill Gates and Steve Balmer bowing before the penguin. Then have the penguin announce in a booming voice that tyanny in the land of Microsoft has to end and that his cleansing fire clean MS of dishonesty, at which time the penguin effigee would belch a fire ball that consumes the Bill Gates and Steve Balmer effigee.

    Heck, this could even be an annual event or a holiday comemerating a specific moment in history when man freed himself from one of the worst tyrranies this world has yet faced and to celebrate the general spirit of individuals who wish to free and those around them as well.

    This suggestion is to be taken with a grain of salt, but in a lot of ways, I'm serious. At the very least, if one LUG were to host something like this ala Burning Man style, I'm sure there would be a huge draw with resulting publicity and maybe some eyeopening in Redmond. However, it's time for the people to take to it Microsoft instead of them doing it the other way around.

    1. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by afd8856 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fuck it! If you're going to burn plastic, I'm gonna be there trying to stop you. As much as I hate Microsoft, the nature itself didn't do you any wrong. There's no need for dioxine in the environment.

      Yes, I'm part of the ecologist nazis. :)

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    2. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, here!

    3. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      Depending on the lobbying power of MS, your idea could very well be considered terrorism. Watch out.

    4. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like, a cordinated anti-MS day in about a year when LUGS all around the world get together on a certain day and destroy MS software as well as MS effigees to protest our discontent.

      What exactly are you not content with? What are you trying to open Redmon's eyes to? Or do you just want to meet up with a bunch of your drug-using hippie friends and burn stuff because burning and destroying things is cool?

    5. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Would it be ok to try to do it in M$ HW? ;)

    6. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by numbski · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then we could build a huge effigee of Bill Gates and Steve Balmer bowing before the penguin. Then have the penguin announce in a booming voice that tyanny in the land of Microsoft has to end and that his cleansing fire clean MS of dishonesty, at which time the penguin effigee would belch a fire ball that consumes the Bill Gates and Steve Balmer effigee.

      "...and the Lord God said `thou shalt build no idols before me'..."

      "...and the number of the beast shall be 666"

      "...and I just saved a load of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico!"

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    7. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by msgregory@earthlink. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm with you, although I'm more concerned with poisoning ourselves rather than any damage done to Nature (as if that were possible). Just a matter of definition.

    8. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if anyone knows what you're talking about ... anyway, heres some pics of the Disco Sucks Riot, along with a sweet AC/DC MIDI.

    9. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by xactuary · · Score: 1

      I was at that very game and witnessed the post-game event. The best part about it was how the 'authorities' were surprised by the crowd's intensity; lots of people tearing up the turf, etc. Turned out that people really were tired of disco, but they didn't know they were so many other like-minded protesters. I can easily see something like you suggest having a major pop culture effect.

      --
      Say hello to my little sig.
    10. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by TheUser0x58 · · Score: 1

      A funny idea maybe, but I think the last thing that will entice corporate types or consumers considering open source alternatives is seeing a bunch of geeks burning effigies on the news.

      --
      -- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
    11. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by mstra · · Score: 1
      Do you remember back on July 12, 1979 at Chicago's Comiskey Park when radio jock Steve Dahl rode the rising setiment of anti-disco and held a promotional where if you brought a disco record to the game to be destroyed at half-time you would get an admission for only $0.98?

      Comiskey is where the White Sox play baseball. There is no halftime in baseball.

      Additionally, there is no crying in baseball, but that's not important right now.

      --
      Photography, technology, and my dog Scout - http://mattstratton.com
    12. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by fermion · · Score: 1
      We have to remember that the media and the bits on the media are worthless. It is license that has value. In the old days, the product did have values, since we never talked about licensing music.

      So what we need is more like a mortgage burning party in which we will burn all our licenses, thus showing our determination not to use windows. After all, none of us use windows without a license.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    13. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by kunudo · · Score: 1

      Who gives a shit though, if they can't recognize good stuff when they see it, fuck them. Sure, we'll get more stuff if it gets more mainstream, but I don't think it's worth changing the eh.. spirit of all the projects for. Their loss.

    14. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      There wasn't a half-time, but they were trying to squeeze the promo into the time-out between the two games of a double header. The last time this happened, there were a bunch of kids that flooded the field. They absconded with the pitching rubber, home plate, and were busy laying around their own fires smoking pot.

      The destruction of vinyl was in some sort of machine, so it was environmentally sound. They weren't burned, until the stoners started doing it.

      We don't need a bunch of geeks getting onto the field to destroy CD's. They'd all bring their own generators, create a gigantic LAN, and begin playing a monstrous game of Counterstrike or Quake 3. Everyone in the crowd would be so disgusted with the geeks that they'd start chucking crap on them, therefore destroying the field.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    15. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a double header. In between games they had the promotion. The White Sox have never had very good attendance, but this promo had more people show up than the stadium could hold. The radio station that sponsored it was a hard rock station. Obviously not many fans of disco. Get a bunch of angry young lads together, fill them up with beer and other substances, spin them into a rage and the rest writes itself. The Sox had to forfeit the second game cause the visiting team, if I recall the Tigers, was afraid to come out.

    16. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by mikefe · · Score: 1

      Poor AC, did you just reply to yourself?

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    17. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by Siggy200 · · Score: 1

      As long as the event is not held at Wrigley Field. Understand that it "rains concrete" once and a while from the upper deck. Harry Caray would roll over in his grave!

    18. Re:Have a Microsoft Night? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm fighting against dioxyhydrogen... that stuff is seriously corrosive... have you seen what it does to metal? Not to mention it makes my fingertips look like prunes....

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  13. Count Me Out by Mattwolf7 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The article didn't mention, but is Longhorn still going to be a complete rewrite as they were talking about before?

    I doubt it if they are going to be putting it out in 2 years. So this is basically going to be Windows XP with a new UI, Avalon the new DirectX, Indigo a program "to allow software and services to work across networks and different devices." and some new programming tool WinFX that supports both XP and Longhorns UI.

    Nothing special.

    -----
    Yep another Free IPods Link

    1. Re:Count Me Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope, it's not a rewrite. Longhorn is going to be based on Windows XP SP2. (It was going to be Server 2003, but they went with SP2 instead.)

    2. Re:Count Me Out by Jozer99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes..[supressed giggle]...Longhorn will be a...[barely contained laugh]...complete rewrite! I have some prime property in Florida to sell you, and I need your assistance in moving some money around in Algeria...

    3. Re:Count Me Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight: a brand new managed-code, DirectX enabled presentation framework; a brand new managed-code reliable messaging bus; and a managed version of almost the entire Windows API. All this and you say, "Nothing special?"

      Expectations too high much? Oh, much too much...

    4. Re:Count Me Out by 1010011010 · · Score: 1


      I don't really believe that Longhorn was ever going to be a "complete rewrite". Do you?

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    5. Re:Count Me Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To consumers all that means nothing.

      Longhorn = Windows ME part II

    6. Re:Count Me Out by Cyberdork · · Score: 1

      The only "complete rewrite" Microsoft did to Windows was when they created Windows NT 3.1, all windows NT versions has been built on the same code (which was made to be very modular and portable from the beginning), and all DOS-based Windows versions have also been based on the same code (at least since Win 3.1).... granted, there have been a multitude of additions and changes between different versions, but never such a complete rewrite.

    7. Re:Count Me Out by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the one feature that I might be interested in is fast-user-switching for domain logins.

      I am running a samba domain at home but with XP I have a choice of fast-user-switching without domain logon, or good-old-NT-logins with the domain. I believe longhorn is supposed to support fast user switching with domain logins.

      In a house with several users, it is a must-have item. Then I don't need to log my wife out of the computer very time I need to run the one or two windows-only apps that I have. (Otherwise I just switch my KVM over to my linux box...)

      And the domain is very helpful since I can use roaming profiles which encourages everybody not to queue up on the one console which I can KVM switch with my linux box...

    8. Re:Count Me Out by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Server 2003 basically is SP2; the betas of WinXP 64bit edition list the Server 2003 kernel as their kernel too, but it's still decked out with all the features we'd recognize as WinXP. Windows is becoming less and less distinct at the kernel level, and more and more seperated at higher levels.

  14. Be engineers better than MS's by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hmm Be eningeers did not need several years to come up with a similar filesystem..what is taking MS so long?

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:Be engineers better than MS's by Cyberhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on, you can get be serious. Alright, BeFS is great, but BeOS was single-user, which simplifies design a whole lot more.

      Not to mention all the pain that it is to redesign a file system with all the features that M$ is trying to push, and still be able to call WinFS, at least, as secure as NTFS.

    2. Re:Be engineers better than MS's by dnaboy · · Score: 1
      hmm Be eningeers did not need several years to come up with a similar filesystem..what is taking MS so long?

      Good point, but look where Be is today...

    3. Re:Be engineers better than MS's by bloo9298 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They have to worry about whether it would work for users. I don't think the Be engineers had to... :-)

    4. Re:Be engineers better than MS's by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Hey! I was one of Be's 12 users and I take offense to that snarky remark! :P

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    5. Re:Be engineers better than MS's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personaly used the BeFS and know of the design. It is way ahead of anything Microsoft has brought to market. The only FS that exists today that I would choose over it is Reiser4.
      If you only consider the filesystem engineering side of things, Be was waaaaaaaay ahead of Microsoft.
      Be is where it is today not because of the fault of their engineers, but because of their failed marketing. Same as Microsoft: bad enginners and good marketing put them where they are today.

    6. Re:Be engineers better than MS's by bloo9298 · · Score: 1

      11 engineers and 1 project manager at Be then? :-)

    7. Re:Be engineers better than MS's by dourk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget that Dominic Giampaolo is behind spotlight on the Apple team.

      --
      Wake up.
  15. 2007? by dybdahl · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, in real life we'll see it in 2007? Or 2008? I guess we have an issue for a poll here :-)

    1. Re:2007? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      2007? Or 2008?

      Only if your reality clock runs too fast. In the mornings when you wake up check your internal clock speed.

      Here is a Howto
      While opening eyes wildly press your left nipple and enter second option in your BIO-s.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  16. Damnit. by EvilCabbage · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. and I just used my last "giant system requirement" joke on the Half Life 2 story.

    1. Re:Damnit. by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is slashdot, you can get away with making the same "insane system requirement" jokes over and over again. :-)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:Damnit. by EvilCabbage · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is slashdot, you can get away with making the same "insane system requirement" jokes over and over again. :-)

      No, no. You're confusing me with an editor.

      Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here all week...

  17. What's so tricky about WinFS? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WinFS is an interesting, bold, and novel take on a file system, but I'm not sure why it's taking so long for them to implement. They've been working on it for a very long time. It's complicated, but it doesn't seem ten-years-by-a-dedicated-team complicated. I can't help but think that once Microsoft comes out with a reference model, there will be an open source reimplementation in months.

    Microsoft has higher demands on it, and it's harder to develop it the first time, and presumably their implementation is optimized to within in an inch of its life, but I still don't see why a project they're working on now won't be ready for 2006.

    Could it be that they want to adapt their applications to use the new features before they release it? That I could see taking forever, since everything from Word down to the format Spider Solitaire saves its games in would be affected. But I assume that they've implemented a Win32 filesystem API on top of it, and presumably with tolerable performance, so why not release it and adapt the apps later?

    1. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Why bother with the win32 filesystem API? this is the perfect opportunity to end all non-microsoft approved software running on windows.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    2. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Halcyon-X · · Score: 5, Informative
      WinFS is a way for applications to share data through defacto XML schema. Like the Windows clipboard allows data to be pasted from any application to any other application (in theory), WinFS is supposed to do the same, so any application can request any data through any other application, and it will process it. Sort of like piping in Linux "everything as a file", only they will have hooks for everything not just stdin stdout. I also assume they will tie in NGSCB/Palladium authentication into this. Here is a link explaining this in more detail.

      The goal is to make their hard disk search easier, handling all types of data. Another goal is to be like open source, by giving proprietary software more reason not to re-invent the wheel, because they can access the data through another application. They will use meta data to define everything so any application can use any data.

      The problem is that 3rd parties all have to agree on a standard, and no doubt patents will be involved, licensing, preventing applications from working well with one another to gain an edge, viruses will have a MUCH easier time doing silly things with your data (this could make distributed data mining a reality if a worm spreads enough), who knows if it will work in practice as well as it should in theory.

      This is why WinFS doesn't replace NTFS but cooperates with it, it's a layer of meta data. Needless to say MS have a huge task on their hands.

      --

      .sig: Open Source, Open Mind

    3. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by subsolar2 · · Score: 2

      They have been promissing WinFS since NT 4.0 and it ends up being pushed out till the "next release". It was orginally part of Cairo and got dropped and we got the OK but not spectacular NT 4.0.

    4. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by tcoady · · Score: 1

      I agree this is not rocket related tech: OS X has had it in finder since 10.3 and will make it better in the next release shown here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight.html

      Also unix has had instant searches in the form of locate or slocate commands for several years if not decades. Meanwhile a simple filename search in XP will take a few minutes even on an indexed disk.

    5. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by supasam · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has higher demands on it, and it's harder to develop it the first time, and presumably their implementation is optimized to within in an inch of its life, but I still don't see why a project they're working on now won't be ready for 2006.

      Cause we all know microsoft produces well made optimized products that stand up to the higher standards of windows users.

      --


      Suck a lemon?
    6. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Actually it could eb very likely they want new software to take advantage of WinFS before it's release... I recently saw a clip showing off a in-development media app that MS is working on that requires WinFS (& since both the alpha app and alpha WinFS were used they sure seem to work atm). It was pretty fancy and simplified alot of file management tasks. I'm guessing most of the delay is related to apps like that, so they can actually show some purpose for WinFS...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    7. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by subsolar2 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah ... Linux will have WinFS before MS does.

    8. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by hahiss · · Score: 1

      Isn't the problem that someone else has yet to invent the technology---so that Microsoft can then outright buy rather than develop it in house?

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    9. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by ctr2sprt · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Bugs in the filesystem are not permissible. People are willing to take occasional downtime and the loss of small pieces of data. They won't stand for an entire filesystem getting corrupted. Think back to the early days of open source "alternative filesystems" like ReiserFS, XFS, and JFS. They all had growing pains, and some people (like me) still haven't forgotten them. If MS ship WinFS with major bugs in it, it'll hurt them badly, especially if their new products rely on the presence of WinFS. (People won't stop using Windows, they'll just use NTFS instead.)

      Imagine that the next versions of SQL Server and Exchange both rely on WinFS. If people aren't using WinFS, they won't be using SQL Server and Exchange. That's a big, big problem. I mean, look at the open source world. How many apps are there which really take advantage of all the features present in XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS? Almost none. It's because they have a history of dubious reliability, so people (and hence distros) have been slow to adopt them. That's precisely what MS are afraid of. They can't roll out WinFS until they know it's reliable enough that people won't be afraid to take advantage of its new features.

      And don't forget that this is not an evolution of NTFS or FAT, it's a completely new animal. Not just in the data structures that are stored on the disk, but in the whole concept of what a filesystem is and how it's to be used. The fact that it's all new code makes it hard to debug; the fact that it's a new paradigm (apologies) makes it almost impossible. How can you know the new features are bug-free if there are no programs which use the new features?

    10. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by shawnce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a Mac OS X user and Mac developer but what Finder has is not close to what WinFS could allow searching wise (yeah it is faster on average then searching on Windows currently via filename) and Spotlight should nearly match WinFS in search capabilities (but lag slightly in aspects of index update speed). WinFS however allows more then just searching, it is attempting to allow the sharing of data between applications, like a data soup (the Newton reborn on the desktop :-).

      To do this however comes at a cost of having to reimplement aspects of current application to understand and package data in the way WinFS desires... this is the main road block for WinFS that I see.

    11. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      • Well, they have to make sure that there's no SCO code in it.
      • They have to check none of the ideas/ algorithms/ business processes are patented
      • They have to find a company that's already done it, then buy them
      • All the other common /. topics
    12. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Jason+Smith · · Score: 3, Informative

      "WinFS however allows more then just searching, it is attempting to allow the sharing of data between applications, like a data soup (the Newton reborn on the desktop :-)."

      Righto. And that's what CoreData in the 10.4 Preview allows. ;) It's all in there.

    13. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows? optimized?

      *snort*

    14. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by elliot2 · · Score: 1
      I can't help but think that once Microsoft comes out with a reference model, there will be an open source reimplementation in months.
      Yes because those open source guys steal everything they can. Ask SCO, they know it.
    15. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Halcyon-X · · Score: 3, Informative
      If MS ship WinFS with major bugs in it, it'll hurt them badly, especially if their new products rely on the presence of WinFS. (People won't stop using Windows, they'll just use NTFS instead.)

      WinFS is NOT a file system. It is a way of describing and sharing meta data so applications can use ANY data format used on the hard drive that is supported by installed applications.

      NTFS is still used, WinFS runs on top, providing the meta data. WinFS has absolutely nothing to do with data being corrupted on the hard drive. In fact, it will perhaps prevent this, as data will be accessed through the program that created it, so the chances of corruption will be that much lower (as opposed to a 3rd party application trying to manipulate a proprietary format).

      --

      .sig: Open Source, Open Mind

    16. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by bushidocoder · · Score: 1

      WinFS is a very tricky problem (see other replies) but they were originally slated to deploy in 2006. From what I've read, the problem is that WinFS relied heavily on the new indexing strategy for embedded SQL Server 2005 (Yukon) which was delayed a full year based on changing requirements in the .NET 2.0 threading library.

      The delays cascaded and six months delay in solidifying the .NET 2.0 library turned into a year delay before Yukon's API had stabilized turned into a year delay for WinFS.

      I think that the whole bundle of late releases surrounding .NET 2.0 is the reason why MS is pulling the "three pillars of Longhorn" apart and releasing them as seperate entities.

    17. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has any real information been released on CoreData?

    18. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by neosake · · Score: 1

      If MS ship WinFS with major bugs in it, it'll hurt them badly

      You're absolutely right, that's probably why NTFS took so long to come in too (I seem to remember NT4 not working well with NTFS until service pack 3 or the likes)

      --
      "When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a frisbee"
    19. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      WinFS is an interesting, bold, and novel take on a file system

      Bullcrap! It's been done before. One of the other replies to this post has a lot of links to seminal works on things like this.

      Microsoft has higher demands on it

      Now this I agree with. They do have higher demands on it. But they have nothing to do with functionality.

      From one of the articles:
      If users are joining the network remotely, for example, a network administrator will be able to ensure the system has up-to-date virus protection and patches, and if it doesn't the administrator will be able to kick the user off the network, said Muglia.

      Wanna bet that earlier versions of Windows will NOT be allowed to participate, regardless of the administarator's wishes? This will be the final nail in the coffin of win98, winNT and any other OS that Microsoft wants to deem obsolete (obsolete = unregistered, uncontrolled by Microsoft).

      From one of the articles:
      Allchin said the moves will keep the company from having to scale back WinFS and will enable Microsoft to implement it on PCs and servers at the same time, something internal Microsoft testers said was important.

      Has to be rolled out on both the clients and servers, eh? Bye, bye any kind of mixed network! You can be sure that this will not play with Linux clients or servers in any way! Companies will soon have a choice: all Microsoft or NO Microsoft; nothing in-between.

      Could it be that they want to adapt their applications to use the new features before they release it?

      Well, yes! Given the comments I made above, I'll bet that virtually every application will need to be rewritten, not just to use Longhorn's features, but to run on Longhorn at all. This is intended to be an upgrade bonanza for Microsoft; new OS, new Office suite, new Front Page, new Visio, etc, etc.

      I, for one, am gonna pass.

    20. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by killjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow. Apple has already done this. I have a beta of Tiger I got at WWDC and it's really slick. It will go into production within six months.

      I still don't get why it's so revolutionary or difficult. Apple did it under a year.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    21. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Are you a member or ADC? If so you could download the SDK anytime you want.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    22. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1
      • Wait until Apple releases spotlight so they can properly rip it off
      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    23. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WinFS is an interesting, bold, and novel take on a file system, but I'm not sure why it's taking so long for them to implement.

      Simple. There is nobody to copy yet.

    24. Re:What's so tricky about WinFS? by hc00jw · · Score: 1

      I still don't get why it's so revolutionary or difficult. Apple did it under a year.

      You mean it was a year between the time 10.3 was released, and 10.4 was announced? The time between when 10.3 is released, and 10.4 was released, is probably going to be the thicker end of a year and a half, and even then, Apple was probably working on it way before 10.3 was released. Hell, maybe it was originally planned for 10.3? The difference between Microsoft and Apple is, Apple doesn't promise what it doesn't think it can deliver... The only notable exception being (as far as I remember) Home on iPod.

  18. What about Apollo program comparisons by failedlogic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft, and in particular Bill Gates, have stated numerous times that Longhorn is the most expensive and time intensive project MS has embarked on and would be as complicated as the Apollo space program. With that in mind, WinFS was really the cornerstone and pride of the Longhorn project as MS would like to say it. With that in mind, this is akin to cutting the goals of the Apollo space program drastically ... like not landing on the moon at all!

    Granted a system like WinFS can be extremely complicated but it is not a "selling" point to me for Longhorn. I will compare it against other features it offers and decide to buy it or continue to use XP.

    1. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      I felt the same way; WinFS is a neat idea on paper and something i'd like to see working, but it's not something i'm desperate to try / need in a hurry.

      On the other hand, consumers don't know what they want until they see what's being sold to them :) WinFS, Avalon, are all nice marketing buzzwords. From that perspective, i expect Longhorn to sell like hotcakes.

    2. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft, and in particular Bill Gates, have stated numerous times that Longhorn is the most expensive and time intensive project MS has embarked on and would be as complicated as the Apollo space program.

      Would you want to fly into space on a shuttle that runs Windows?

      "Uhhh Houston, what the hell is a pagefault in kernel32.386?"

    3. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For that point, I wouldnt like to fly into space on a shuttle that runs Linux. Neither Linux or Windows are stable enough to be used in that circumstance, you want a proven realtime OS to handle it.

    4. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by Reducer2001 · · Score: 1

      Is Microsoft going to fake the Longhorn launch as well? Maybe on a soundstage that looks like a Wal-Mart? :)

      --
      When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
    5. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, do it in hardware.

    6. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what is super luxurious house [Longhorn - even though it costed as much as Apollo space program] really worth when it's corner stone [WinFS - major selling point] is shabby and beta???

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    7. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      like not landing on the moon at all

      Well, more like delaying the landing by a few years. Of course a delay by a few years will allow Russians (Reiser) to get there first.

      --
      badness 10000
    8. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      When there are bugs in a hardware-only solution, how do you patch them? Or do you just burn up during the unscheduled re-entry?

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    9. Re:What about Apollo program comparisons by BalkanBoy · · Score: 1

      Uhm.. I know CS is difficult, but to put it on the intelectual scale above rocket science, is a bit too much , won't you agree? After all, any ol' programmer can use a $1500 dollar PC to create software at any rate he wishes... but to create rockets, or their components, it require a bit more than 1500 dollars and a knowledge of computer architecture and a programming language.

      --
      'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
  19. More Uncompleteness by artlu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pretty soon Gates will come out and say that the newly designed Kernel is not going to be complete, and they'll be selling XP Longhorn Edition. This is almost as bad as ID.

    gShares.net

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
    1. Re:More Uncompleteness by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Nah, don't worry kernel WILL be complete in time. But on the day of the release SCO (if they will still exist) will sue them for cca. 5-10 million lines of stolen code

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:More Uncompleteness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better still, you're buying all of the GUI stuff, but they've integrated a Linux kernel...

  20. Complexity issues by ThePyro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Eek.... who would want to trust their data to a file system so complex that even Microsoft can't finish it after multiple years of development?

    1. Re:Complexity issues by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Eek.... who would want to trust their data to a file system so complex that even Microsoft can't finish it after multiple years of development?

      We already do, it's called NTFS! :P

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:Complexity issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate stupid jokes but here is one:

      Now that Reiser 4 is out, Bill can write a plug-in for it and call it WinFS!

  21. vaporware? by mantera · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Microsoft has been doing this for too long for my taste now. Promising all remarkable and amazing things that keep us on our toes and when the product hits the shelves it's only ever so slightly different from its predecessor.

    1. Re:vaporware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Promising all remarkable and amazing things that keep us on our toes and when the product hits the shelves it's only ever so slightly different from its predecessor.

      You'd think Peter Molyneux worked for Microsoft.

  22. How is this 'interesting'? by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Informative

    WinFS is simply the latest itteration of the concept of a database based file system that Microsoft has been touting as the next great thing to be included with Windows, since they started promoting the upcomming Windows 2000. (possibly earlier). The fact that Microsoft has not come up with a workable solution tells me that non-file related features are of greater importance to the marketing people than getting something out the door.

    --
    You never know...
    1. Re:How is this 'interesting'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they still havent been able to design a file system that isn't affected by viruses. That should be Microsoft's priority if they develop another fs for windows.

  23. Vaporware catches flames, gotta Love Microsoft by SlashCrunchPop · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The most notable element of this announcement was Gates' admission that WinFS, Microsoft's next-generation file system, would not be complete in time for this release - surprising, since this was the most hyped component of the next iteration of Windows.
    And just what is surprising about that? Everyone with at least half a brain (no pun on recent Half-Life posts intended) knows not to expect Microsoft to deliver. Any news on Rob Love's work on the Linux alternative to WinFS?
  24. WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by EXTomar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A feature that solves no problem. An interesting idea placed in the wrong location. And I'm glad its shelved.

    On paper, this sounds neat kind of in a thesis paper sort of way. But the practicality of it was way beyond what any desktop user would need. I had problems figuring out how to use it efficiently (after all you have to have meta data lined up). I couldn't even begin to figure out how to explain how WinFS would help grandma and grandpa.

    I do see WinFS as an interesting tool for server applications but for a desktop it isn't feasible without a whole heck of a lot more tools. On a server I can see this being a powerful tool to help keep your web app file data sane because you can force metadata and relationships there. On a desktop it would have been a feature with cumbersome tools used once a month. This is the very definition of bloat. I am very glad it was shelved since the cost vs benifit of WinFS on the desktop was completely off.

    1. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by Bayleaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with you - definately bloatware. But when has that stopped Microsoft?

      --
      I might not be a wit, but at least I am more than half way there.
    2. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am no MS lover at all, and WinFS is just one of multiple implementations of the concept underlying it, but I think the point that it is getting constantly bashed is because it is by Microsoft. Either that, or our tech savvy slashdot crowd just developed into a bunch of retards.

      Why can't you just accept new technology and first take a look at it? It's not that the good old tree like filesystems are the best ones. They do indeed have problems. Have you ever read about data modelling? Have you studied some papers about that? Obviously not, otherwise you would know what the current state of data representation is. Hierarchical systems are indeed some of the worst if it comes to expressive semantics. There are new concepts outthere, trying to solve those problems, and, yes, they come along with a new paradigm.

      If you are too lazy to learn and accept new paradigms, you don't deserve to be a geek.

    3. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, not exactly. I can see how I'd explain this to my grandmother ("Nana, type 'vacation photos from our trip to Italy'" instead of "Nana, search for files with the name DSCITALY001...") That's the ideal implementation any way.

      I could also see this being a boon for business. Often when I'm on the phone with someone, I like to pull up all of our email coorespondance. They could do a "spokewheel" implementation: each person would be an axle and various spokes would link to business contact info, personal information, photos of them, etc. Think calling a client, having it pop up and asking "Oh, how was your son's birthday last week?" Again, ideal implementation.

    4. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 1

      Unless I've missed something it seems to me that in order for WinFS to work it's not JUST the operating system that needs to have a framework in place, but 3rd party applications need to play nice and reveal details on what their documents contain.

      This seems very unlikely that 3rd parties would be willing to give up that kind of control to Microsoft. Not to mention, getting every popular 3rd party app to conform even if they didn't mind publishing that kind of data about documents seems like it'd be a long and tedious task.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    5. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by NullProg · · Score: 1

      A feature that solves no problem.

      It solved Microsofts and Hollywoods DRM problem nicely. Other than that, I completly agree with you.

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    6. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Either that, or our tech savvy slashdot crowd just developed into a bunch of retards.

      The retards overran the techies here long ago. There's hardly any geeks left that think technology is cool or interesting by itself. Slashdot has become a bunch of MP3 Pirates who got bitched by Windows 98 and hate everything new because it might have a patent on it.

    7. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is the computer supposed to know that the photos are from the trip to Italy? Someone is going to have to enter that stuff. If you think that's going to happen, then I think you overestimate how much effort most people want to put into their computers. It should be able to search files with text just fine, but then again windows can already do this.

      When I look for things, I usually have concepts of what I'm searching for "that picture of my girlfriend in college" , "that mpeg of a car chase in Dallas" - I could literally spend weeks tagging all the crap, because windows certainly won't know what it is. WinFS sounds nice, but I think MS is expecting we download/create content that is already tagged somehow. Riiight, that's going to happen.

    8. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by TheUser0x58 · · Score: 1
      I could also see this being a boon for business. Often when I'm on the phone with someone, I like to pull up all of our email coorespondance. They could do a "spokewheel" implementation: each person would be an axle and various spokes would link to business contact info, personal information, photos of them, etc. Think calling a client, having it pop up and asking "Oh, how was your son's birthday last week?" Again, ideal implementation.

      Of course, there are commercial programs that have been doing things like this for years now. ACT! is an example I can come up with, and I suspect there are many more.

      --
      -- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
    9. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandmother isn't going to write out all of the possible search strings into a huge essay every time she saves a photo. Where will this magical metadata come from?

      Michael

    10. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      And why don't you grandma just save the picture as "Vacation Photos from our trip to Italy.jpg"? We've had long filenames for years.

    11. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by Bayleaf · · Score: 1

      You are right - it could be a boon for business but the problem is, as usual, getting people to use it. Example - your *good* users set up a My Documents\Customer Name\Recent Postings etc. system and can usually find what they need very quickly. Lots of other users just dump it where convenient at the time. This is an educational problem, and one that will never go away, unless MS can come up with something really world (or user) beating. Keyword searching within documents will cover at lot of it but I think Nana searches will be difficult!

      --
      I might not be a wit, but at least I am more than half way there.
    12. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "And how is the computer supposed to know that the photos are from the trip to Italy? Someone is going to have to enter that stuff."

      Not really. You already have the time and date stamps. When you plug in the camera, the system could ask "what are these pictures from?" Nana would type "Italy trip". The system, if it was smart, could compare faces to previous photos and determine "this is Bob, this is uncle Frank", etc. For people it didn't know, it could ask (Nana types "that's my sister I haven't seen in years") and the system would classify the remaining.

      Again, ideal system. Photo recognition isn't even close to what I'm talking about here, but I can imagine we might reach it in a decade or two.

    13. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by fermion · · Score: 2, Informative
      One useful thing is that the metadata can be more of less human readable, and a standard API can be used to insert, manage, and locate files based on the data. This is kind of useful because it frees the user from having to code the matadata into the filename, extension, or directory structure.

      What this does not do is inherently make life simpler. For security and other reasons, files will still have to placed in proper directories.Whoever is saving the file will still have to remember to associate the metadata. Most people will find their labels are useless because they will not apply labels consistantly, or perhaps will misspell words. At the end of the day I will still get calls asking where certain files are.

      What would be revolutionary, and more useful, is to use the data of the file to generate metadata. MS has some ability to do this, as we saw with clippy. 'It seems you are writing a letter to Alice about meeting her tonight for a quickie, and where you might do so away from your wife and friends. Would you like to file this under affairs:general, affairs:current, affairs:alice, and encrypt it with your personal password?"

      The current icons in file cabinents system is not bad. it is just that people don't use it, or the OS won't let you use it effectively. The same will be true for meta-data.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    14. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Of course it depends how much you use WinFS, but it will already contain other concepts like people, places and events. So if you made an entry on your calender, "I will be on holiday in italy date1 to date2", and then you come back and attach a digital camera with lots of photos with EXIF creation date times during that period, its not hard to see that the computer can put 2 and 2 together and work out where the photos were taken.

      So it copies the photos to your hard disc and create relationships to the entities "Place:Italy", "Event:Holiday", and the people you were on holiday with. Thus free text queries become workable with a minimum of effort.

      The more data you put into WinFS the more it can help you. It combines the formerly proprietory data stores from all your applications and makes these joined-up operations possible.
      They were even talking about including face recognition software in Longhorn, so you won't have to manually tell it who is in each photo.

      Adding metadata is not about typing text strings in each files properties, its about combining existing knowledge and easy-to-use UI features like stacks and smart folders to make forming relationships between item pretty much automatic.

      Also by the time WinFS is available GPS recievers might be standard in digital cameras so it would know where the photo was taken that way.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    15. Re:WinFS Is A Prime Example Of Unneeded Bloat by HawkingMattress · · Score: 1

      except she didn't name the photos "vacation trip blah blah" because it was a boring task and she prefered to just have the soft name them automatically.
      I don't see why she'd have the urge to use the metadata if she doesn't name her files properly now...

      And furthermore most people have difficulties to understand the whole concept of metadata, even if they are used to computers. Try to explain your grandma that if she wants send by email to her friend her song located at "jazz/Miles davis/so what?" in itunes she should look under c:\mymusic...

  25. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By that time our company will be running Linux on desktops.

    1. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your company is smart. I wish other companies would follow your example. Good job!

  26. Oh great... by kc01 · · Score: 0
    Now everytime I buy longhorn cheese, I'll think of Microsoft. What a way to leave a bad taste in my mouth!

    (but then, there's something oddly poetic about them naming their products after cheese...)

  27. Easy Way to Add WinFS... by Roguelazer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just make a BFS driver. :P

  28. As usual... by Dwonis · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's marketing department comes crawling back to reality shortly before release.

  29. Ok... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    Ok...So, Longhorn in 2006. Let me get this strait: Not WinFS Avalon will be in Windows XP SP3 or SP4 Enhanced security is already in SP2 2006 is 3 years after the original date So what is left in Longhorn, do you pay $200-$300 for a new Microsoft cardboard box, boot screen and color theme?

    1. Re:Ok... by whiteranger99x · · Score: 2, Funny

      Be nice to Microsoft, they still have to pay Fisher Price royalties for the color scheme they have in XP ;)

      But in a nutshell, yes. You get to pay MS to say "Hey look at me, I got that newfangled Winders! It's the Shoehorn version!" :)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:Ok... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of new features they could use.

      Windows 2006: XP in an aluminium box

    3. Re:Ok... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Think they will have cathode ray lights in Blackcomb (Windows 2010)?

  30. Didn't you get the memo about DNF? by Laebshade · · Score: 0

    It's going to be released with HL2 and Longhorn.

  31. Another article by fishrokka · · Score: 2, Informative

    Another article on Longhorn from today's Washington Post:

    New Windows Planned for 2006

    featuring the amusing subhead "Microsoft Dumping Features to Meet Deadline"

  32. It takes decades to undo the COM damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This has all been part of the plan. Microsoft is slowly but surely dumping their crap interfaces and driving well-engineered, object-orientated .Net interfaces to all the low level stuff and providing well-managed, high-level interfaces that really leverage developer productivity at the OS API level rather than in the developer tools the way they had to do it on top of COM crap. If they manage to do it all before 2010, I'll be impressed.

  33. But... by Uncertain+Bohr · · Score: 1

    Will it run on my Mac?
    Oh wait... I don't care :-)

  34. We Don't need WinFS Anyway by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call me a luddite if you will, but for the life of me, I cannot see the reason for a new filesystem. I'm all for metadata and so forth, but why rip up the tried and tested file and directory structure for this magical, cure all, search based filesystem. Search works well in Google because web pages are connect. My files aren't connected, so I don't think search on my filesystem will ever be half as good as search on the web.

    As far as I can tell, MS (and GNOME 2.6 it would seem), seem to envision a filesystem where every file is simply dumped to one / or c:\ directory and this uber search finds all the files I'll ever need for me? Is this a joke? In this senario, ~50% of all the metadata will be the same for every file. I made it, with my privilages, with my settings etc... . After a while, even the simplest of searches will bring back a dozen matches. I can't see this working.

    The reason given for this is novice users, who don't know where to put their files. they rely on their default program settings and just dump their files anywhere and then complain when they cannot find them. Fair enough, they are novices, but essentially hey are keeping a messy hard disc. WinFS would help these people only in the initial stages. As soon as too many files named 'Picture of Aunt Tilly' are present, the system will fall on its ass.

    Metadata/Search based filesystems are based on the assumption that users do not know where their files are. I do, you do and for those who don't, no amount of programming wizardry is going to help them in the long run. Ultimatly they will have to learn how to organise their files, just like they have to learn to type,use the mouse and browse the web. And in reality, most people do eventually learn how to organise their files, if they use computers enough. And if they don't, our regular searches will be of use to them with only minor improvements. It's tough, but consider the search results that 'Find my Accounts for Acme Corp. for the third quarter of last year' brings up on the shared drive for even a medium sized accounting department after only a year.

    Give me nested directories 30 levels deep!! And no spatial browsing please!
    I did wast an entry in my journal on this stuff. maybe now someone will read it?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by borgheron · · Score: 1

      Because NTFS is fairly slow, clunky and has the rather brain-dead file sharing limitations that every version of Windows has suffered from up until now.

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    2. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by archivis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WinFS is just NTFS + SQL Server.

      Same crud, extra layer.

      --
      In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
    3. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by subsolar2 · · Score: 1
      Metadata/Search based filesystems are based on the assumption that users do not know where their files are. I do, you do and for those who don't, no amount of programming wizardry is going to help them in the long run. Ultimatly they will have to learn how to organise their files, just like they have to learn to type,use the mouse and browse the web. And in reality, most people do eventually learn how to organise their files, if they use computers enough. And if they don't, our regular searches will be of use to them with only minor improvements. It's tough, but consider the search results that 'Find my Accounts for Acme Corp. for the third quarter of last year' brings up on the shared drive for even a medium sized accounting department after only a year.
      Well I work in an office and most the people there are not Uber oganized people and something like this would help them. They either end up loosing a copy of a presentation or something and I have to seach the server for it (they often are not sure of the name even) or we end up with a dozen nearly identical dupiclates of a 150MB presentation in a dozen different places because everybody pulls it up and then has to save a copy in their own directory.
    4. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Metadata/Search based filesystems are based on the assumption that users do not know where their files are.

      Maybe having to know where your files are is a concept that should be discarded. Remember when everything was on the command line and the only way to get anything done was to know all the commands ahead of time? Then the GUI came along, and it became possible to explore programs and figure out how they worked as you went along. Or when you had to know the IRQ or other bits of technical data about a piece of hardware to install it? Now we have plug-and-play, and I don't think anyone can deny that's an improvement even if it does hide more information from the user than before.

      (Incidentally, this sort of usage pattern is exactly how my father, definitely a non-savvy user, gets his work done- sit down, open the search program, type in the name of the file he was working on last time. I can't wait until his old beige G3 dies and I can force him to get something running Tiger with Spotlight...)

    5. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by leperkuhn · · Score: 1
      As far as I can tell, MS (and GNOME 2.6 it would seem), seem to envision a filesystem where every file is simply dumped to one / or c:\ directory and this uber search finds all the files I'll ever need for me? Is this a joke? In this senario, ~50% of all the metadata will be the same for every file. I made it, with my privilages, with my settings etc... . After a while, even the simplest of searches will bring back a dozen matches. I can't see this working.
      Umm.. no. Actually you'd still have an organized directory structure that you could browse through. Bill has said this before.
      --
      http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
    6. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Kidding! Every month I have to go through my users shares and delete about 20 copies of bloody WMP9. I replace them with shortcuts to a centralized copy, but they just don't seem to get it.

    7. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filesystems aren't just for users - it's also for applications. Imagine if applications kept their data in relations instead of proprietary file formats, XML (blech), and data structures. The ability to query window/application contents from several applications and join them into a new relation or view. Create your windows with customized content from several apps. Programming might even be fun again.

      Of course, this can be done without relations if all applications would agree to a standard way to store and interchange data. But then you'd have to add some sort of query facility, integrity constraints, etc. and by the time all that's done what's left will be some kind of kludgy DBMS.

    8. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently re-installed my XP machine and thought I would turn on the content indexing service to see just how good it is. Astonishingly it was about an order of magnitude slower than just brute force searching the disk. If Microsoft can't get something as trivial as an index right, how exactly would they get winfs right?

    9. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Metadata/Search based filesystems are based on the assumption that users do not know where their files are.

      Folders and file structures can also be metadata. The benefits of an fs which can index files on multiple criteria become more apparent when you think about files which have multiple inheritances.
      If you want to keep the folder metaphor, for example, having this sort of information in metadata would alow you to browse the data in folder structures which would morph to match the way you browsed. For example, an image file which was relevant to both engineering and safety could appear as /images/engineering/safety if you were using an image editing program or as /engineering/safety/images if you were working with CAD tools.
      This sort of structure is less useful for an individual who is managing their file collection themselves, but would be immensely valuable to organisations which need to make data available to diverse groups,

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    10. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by bushidocoder · · Score: 1

      WinFS doesn't mean you don't have folder anymore - it just means its not the only way of organizing. In my experience, 98% of the time I know about where to look for a file, but search would be really nice for that 2%.

      Its also a fantastic way of looking at groups of files - There are plenty of apps that organize music files by metadata, but they use their own system for it. Likewise, there's plenty of apps that organize pictures by metadata, but being different products they use a completely different system. It would be nice if my apps could search my box (or better yet, all boxes on my network) for a specific concert, and not only get the audio but also some pictures I snapped and the album art for the CD. Why stop there - I could use that same search to find emails to my friends leading up to the concert, and notations linking out to websites I viewed related to that concert.

      Or how about a friend IMs me a link about going skydiving in two weekends and within the app, it can find the date, search against my calendar and contacts list and come back with the little message that says "You're already going to New Orleans with your brother for his birthday". Not that I'd forget a trip to New Orleans, but maybe for smaller stuff....

    11. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Then why the fuck is it taking so long? I mean reiser 4 was written in less time by just a few people.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    12. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by ianezz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Give me nested directories 30 levels deep!! And no spatial browsing please!

      I agree with you that putting everything in the same basket and rely just on metadata to extract info is quite stupid (probably we'll end with a "folder" and "subfolder" metadata anyways, so what's the point?). But relying exclusively on directory trees to classify data has definitively limits, in that a certain file may belong to at most one category (if you are thinking that symlinks and hardlinks solve that problem nicely, please consider that symlinks break if you rename/move the original file, and hard links are limited to the same volume, and there is high inconvenience in making a proper backup of them - in that you end with multiple copies of the same data).

      That being said, one could say there's no real need for special filesystem support to store/search metadata: let's do a periodic collection of metadata from files, just like locatedb does, and we are all happy, right? Well, for one there is the latency between updates, and there are also are issues in a multi-user environment (one should see results just for files which he may access at the instant of the query).

      The right answer is probably somewhere in the middle, I'd say that ReiserFS 4 with its plugin architecture is a great tool to experiment with this (idea: each time a file that was opened for writing/appending is closed, notify an userspace daemon to extract its metadata and put a copy of it somewhere: metadata is still in the file, and its copy is kept up-to-date in a form which is easier to perform searches on using an uniform API, but you need some kernel support to do this efficiently).

    13. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      Search works well in Google because web pages are connect. My files aren't connected, so I don't think search on my filesystem will ever be half as good as search on the web.

      The reason google works is because it associates meaning with search terms. That is, when you link to a document from a term, you're saying "this document is the meaning of this term". Google can be really dumb about how it analyzes this, and still give great results.

      To parse regular documents, you would need to be able to associate meaning without href, which would involve actually understanding words, and what they mean in relation to eachother. A truly daunting task, but MS has a sizeable NLP department in their R&D labs, so I would not put it past them to be working on something like that.

      Google did it the easy way, but if MS succeeds in doing it the hard way, they will be able to search orders of magnitude more effectively.

    14. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by RdsArts · · Score: 1

      I agree, in a way. The problem isn't where it's stored, but that Windows/MacOS/KDE/GNOME/et al make associating where a file goes difficult. Mainly because they each use at least three different ways to work with the filesystem at any time.

      Additionally, some apps will default to different directories when saving, which causes confusion because, honestly, save boxes are just another "click OK and close" popup these days.

    15. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by kunudo · · Score: 1

      Seems you have disabled comments on that journal entry... :)

    16. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Yes the directory structure would look much the same, except they would all be virtual folders.
      So \\computer\files\pictures\holidays\snowtrees.jpg is the same as \\computer\files\family\chirstmas\2002\snowtrees.j pg

      these folders don't exist except as a way of performing queries on your files. This will allow old win32 applications to be used to access files stored in WinFS without having to be rewritten.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    17. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. However, I think MS is taking the wrong approach to solve this "users are idiots" problem.

      First, they should make all programs be -forced- to default to a specific directory - or one of several specific directories - that are all in their "home" directory (or "My Documents", whatever). These files would then be automatically divided up by task (or session) or data type.

      For instance, if grandma turned on her computer and connected her digital camera, she'd be prompted with something like, "What do you want to call the images on your camera?" or something to that effect. The data would then be stored in (say) "My Documents\photos\$date\italy vacation".

      The same kind of mechanism would be employed via Office and other applications, doing 'automatic' negotiations with some sort of schedule mechanism to determine whether the data is part of a "project" or to be filed chronologically and in the seperate data-type folders. Possibly something like a feature I've heard about in the upcoming OSX 10.4 that provides a mechanism to easily find any data string, anywhere, "instantly".

      WinFS sounds like an ill-conceived idea to me. There are much better ways to impliment what they're trying to do, with less overhead, and better results.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    18. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, though I can't see why both can't co-exist. Surely, knowing where you keep the files can be necessary and satisfying for people who like to organize things and control their preferences. But having data available for quick searches and sharing can be very useful too.

      I remember people complain very much about iTunes because they structure their music folders differently, but once they are use to using iTunes and its metadata, they rarely have to access the files themselves. Except when they use it with other apps. But as iLife apps show, coordination between apps also saves you from accessing the files themselves. I can see this to be very useful. Something that can't be done in folder structures without lots of aliases and renaming files: organization based on content info. You can organize your music by artist-album-song, but you'll have to create lots of aliases to add genre there since not all artists stick with one genre (harder if you use sub-genre: classic rock, hard rock, slow rock, jazz rock).

      But, for somethings where you don't have so many files to organize, getting to the files themselve can be quicker than using a sorting app or typing keywords to search them.

  35. ...and avalon/indigo will be available for xp/2k3 by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...wich is not a surprise. Making those available in all the relevant windows platforms they'll tempt developers to *use* them (the same binary using avalon features may work without modifications in longhorn *and* XP SP$SOMETHING - compare that to avalon only being available for longhorn. Everyone would use just XP features and no longhorn features because fo the extra work needed). It looks to me like they though that everyone would jumpo to Longhorn because of their coolness, but they realized that they would lost what they call "the api wars". Now that they realized that Longhorn can't be 100% true they need to retain people in their new APIs - putting them available for XP is a good way to do that. I'd call that "conserving upwards compatibility" a different version of one of the reasons they're everywhere: "conserving backwards compatibility"

  36. They may be getting Indigo, by Trigun · · Score: 1

    But are they getting Fezzik and Vizzini as well?
    Or is that for 2007?

    1. Re:They may be getting Indigo, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The character's name was Inigo Montoya, with no "d".

    2. Re:They may be getting Indigo, by edgar_is_good · · Score: 1

      My name is Indigo Montoya. You SCOed my OS. Prepare to die.

    3. Re:They may be getting Indigo, by Trigun · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. But then the comment would have been completely offtopic and irrelevant, rather than completely offtopic and somewhat irrelevant.

  37. Not too much left.. by Soldevi · · Score: 1
    Not too much left on the major feature list...
    • Avalon - Gone
    • Indigo - Gone
    • WinFS - Gone
    • More Bugs
    • Support for new virii/spyware
  38. LinuxWorld story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maureen O'Gara has a good piece on this at LinuxWorld combatively titled "Microsoft Gored by Fat Cow"

    Among other things she writes:

    The sexy WinFS storage system, which is supposed to unify the base OS file system and the file stores in many applications, is a reprise of the spoiled old Cairo project that Microsoft broke its horns on trying to develop years ago. In Cairo's case the file system was dubbed OFS, short for Object File System.

    To extricate itself from its habitual scheduling pickle, Microsoft has reportedly been "componentizing" its technology so that there are no dependencies and so that things can stand on their own, so to speak, buying it the breathing space it needs - as it does now - to get on with rebuilding its operating system from the ground up.

    Microsoft of course has never confirmed that this what it's doing, but Gartner has long thought that was what it was up to and now it appears that Gartner was right because Microsoft is now saying that it will deliver WinFS "after the Longhorn release" and that Longhorn's two other special, so-called WinFX technologies, the new Avalon presentation engine and the new Indigo web services communications subsystem, will be made available for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003

  39. Of course WinFS was dropped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't seriously think that Microsoft had any intention of shipping WinFS with Longhorn did you? That's one of their standard reasons why you shouldn't switch to an alternative operating system - because [x] fancy feature is coming out Real Soon Now. Once they've held onto you long enough to get over the hype surrounding their competitors, and once the release date looms nearer, they drop the pretense that they are going to ship with the fancy new feature. WinFS is vapourware.

    "In other cases, vaporware is announced by companies in order to damage the development or marketability of more real products by competitors"

    Remember when Windows 95 was supposed to be uncrashable because of 32-bit memory protection? Did Windows 95 actually deliver on that promise? Did the half-dozen or so operating systems that Microsoft released after Windows 95 deliver on that promise? How long do you realistically think it will take them to deliver WinFS?

  40. Let's trump 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we have a good idea of what longhorn's feature set is. And we have a nice long timetable for when it might be released. I'm betting that open source can create its own versions of these features (the ones worth having, at least) well before then ... wouldn't it be fun to completely trump MS on their own OS recreation.

  41. LongHorn and .Not sucks delayed with bugs and mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do people still use suckie windoze and .Not full of bugs virus must kep an IT shop busy 365 rebooting and rebuilding suckie windoze .net server boxes.

    M$ products are just yuckie.

  42. Re:IT the movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF, is it Offtopic day today or what?? Or are new posts from now on offtopic from the beginning?? Yeah, mod me OT!

  43. From last link of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Longhorn, the next major server OS release, is now targeted for 2007. Its major new features will include the WinFX platform, including Avalon for mostly client-side graphics, Microsoft's next generation file system WinFS, and the Web services messaging system Indigo.

    Didn't read the other articles, so maybe this article has a mistake

  44. Reiser4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad MS is stripping WinFS, because this makes ReiserFSv4 look much better in comparison. Who needs a bloated database FS when you can do it modularly with plugins?

  45. Re:IT the movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the mighty "editors" decided to mangle with /. today?

  46. The future is much better. by twitter · · Score: 0
    Actually, it might be a blessing. The pressure on IT to roll out new versions puts a real burden on us.

    It won't be so hard in the future. I know how bad things are because worked a fortune 500 "upgrade" to XP a few weeks ago. They figure the average tech can get two PCs done in 8 hours, how pathetic. With people feeling so well burnt about hyped stagnation ware and a failed three year "job one" effort to fix things, upgrading will be considerably simplified for your next release. It will consist of a chron job:

    1. apt-get update
    2. apt-get upgrade

    Packages will reside on one of several local servers, any old 486 will do, with multi year uptimes. The hired help upgrade slave gangs will be a thing of the past.

    Your job will simply be to customize the installations to meet your organization's needs and to manage your company's data. You will do this by keeping abreast of software development, employee feedback and programming in your copious spare time. It will be much more fun than calling vendors and screwing around with binary crap that does not work well. Your company will be very happy.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:The future is much better. by Duke+Machesne · · Score: 0, Troll

      How long you figure it would take to emerge a new version of OpenOffice on 10,000 machines?

    2. Re:The future is much better. by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      a: who said anything about emerge? apt-get was mentioned, which installs binaries.
      b: in a company with 10,000 machines, I'd assume a great number of them would be identical (bought in bulk) with identical configurations, so you could build the package once (using emerge's -b flag) and install it on all those pcs (with emerge's -k flag)

      either way, your point is void

      --
      TIAEAE!
    3. Re:The future is much better. by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      You can emerge binaries if you want to.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    4. Re:The future is much better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look everyone, twitter has figured out IT. All we need is a 486. Let's pack it up and go home.

    5. Re:The future is much better. by Nyder · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I decided not to mod the talk because I wanted to reply to what is probably a troll post.

      get a life.

      who gives a fuck if twitter is so anti-MS

      you don't like him, put him on your foe list.

      But to NOT tell me how to mod anything. I take everything on a post by post basis.

      mainly since your a AC ninny who's not man/women enough to post under your account.

      Notice I don't have a problem replying under my account name.

      so what, did twitter post something that you didn't like, and call you a troll or liar? probably because you relied to his post with an AC.

      next time, log in when your going to tell people about how "horrible" someone here is. Give that person a chance to face his accuser.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    6. Re:The future is much better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... I think that was a joke.
      Why are gentoo users so sensitive?

  47. Poor efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm WinFS is do-able. I think what is more likely is that Microsoft's implementation had such brutal bloat that its ram and CPU requirements were more than computers any time soon can handle.

    Microsoft will be anxious to put another version of Windows out. They need to keep upscaling Window's system requirements to drive new PC sales. If the latest version of Windows runs slowly on a computer, people think the said computer is outdated and needs to be replaced. Buying a new computer entails sending money to Microsoft for a new Windows licence. It's that simple.

    In addition, Microsoft is anxious to put out the next generation version of Internet Explorer to try and tie the world wide web to Windows, which I'm sure they'll do quite effectively. They'll have noticed Mozilla's market share slowly creeping up.

  48. just buy a mac :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OS/X is already superior, runs 64 bit code, and is completely intuitive and is a free and open source Unix that is better than Linux.

    just buy a mac :-)

  49. Hrm by vuvewux · · Score: 0, Troll

    Could this delay mean that the year of Linux' dominance over microsoft is finally approaching?

    --

    Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
  50. Maturity at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Round of applause please. M$ have just made an engineering decision that works for users at the expense of their own image and revenue stream.

    If WinFS was in late beta at the time for the Longhorn release there would be a massive urge in MS to release it anyway, bugs and all so as to get dosh out of the upgrades. That would be disasterous!

    The FS needs to be just about indistinguishable from perfect and bug free; bleeding edge doesn't cut it. M$ seems to have grown up enough to realize that.

  51. Re:Why WinFS is not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering your history of postings and assorted comments such as "I love you GNAA", one may think you're just a spotty teenager venting his excess of hormones here.

    Well, let's see though: you're Slashdot user ID #262881, which means you probably opened your account around 1998/1999.

    It is now 2004, about 5/6 years later. Assuming you were, say, 15 when you opened your account, you're now 20 or 21. My personal guess is, probably more.

    Which means you're not a spotty teenager with some social adjustment issues, but a certified fully blow retarded grown up. Do you feel good about yourself?

  52. It *was* Shorthorn by tepples · · Score: 1

    and they'll be selling XP Longhorn Edition.

    This was, in fact, the plan all along. Longhorn was to be XP Second Edition, version 5.5 or the like, and Blackcomb was the new all-singing all-dancing Windows 6.0.

  53. As much as I don't like Microsoft... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... I was actually interested to see what WinFS would be like. From what I understand, it is supposed to be different from the traditional heirarchical filesystem. If the filesystem worked like a database, then folders would be the equivalent of tables and SQL statement results, if it actually used folders.

    I know that Apple's upcoming release of Spotlight with OS X "Tiger" is probably what WinFS would appear to be like from the GUI perspective, but its underlying filesystem is still heirarchical since they're not changing it. I presume it would work similar to the way iTunes displays libraries and playlists like a database, yet stores the actual files in a heirarchical arrangement only visible to a user who manually browses the filesystem. Data displayed from WinFS would be a direct representation, rather than indirect one of data stored heirarchically.

    1. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that Apple's upcoming release of Spotlight [apple.com] with OS X "Tiger" is probably what WinFS would appear to be like from the GUI perspective, but its underlying filesystem is still heirarchical since they're not changing it.

      WinFS will run on top of NTFS.

    2. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0, Redundant

      umm, hey stupid, WinFS is a layer on top of NTFS. Longhorn would have still has a heirarchical file system

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      ...when WinFS comes out in 2025.

    4. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "it would work similar to the way iTunes displays libraries and playlists like a database, yet stores the actual files in a heirarchical arrangement only visible to a user who manually browses the filesystem"

      Uh, well, there is a database. Look at iTunes Music Library.xml in your root iTunes folder. There's all the data that iTunes uses. The heirarchical arrangement is simply for the user to have a better idea what they're looking through when they rooting through the file system

      Spotlight will supposedly create a file like that for the entire drive. We'll see.

    5. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      There was confusion as to whether or not it would replace NTFS, so thank you for clarifying that point, asshole.

    6. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      no problem. seems morons like yourself have been confused for a long long time.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    7. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Uh, well, there is a database.

      I know there's an XML database- I was implying that iTunes makes it appear like the MP3's (and AAC's) are stored in a single database file the way objects are in applications like FileMaker Pro or MS Access, when they are actually stored separately in directories instead of being embedded in tables.

      Spotlight will supposedly create a file like that for the entire drive. We'll see.

      Steve Jobs actually says a lot about it in his Keynote Webcast. It must work with a single file, because Spotlight is system-wide. And the data is updated on-the-fly while you use the computer, so the search process is really fast. In the video, he adds a VCF file to the Address book, and it already shows up in search results. It actually gives results as you type the way iTunes does, rather than after clicking a button. He even gives an example of how a search returned a PDF file of a map of Yosemite National Park when he did a search for "Half Dome". It wasn't even stored as tagged metadata in the PDF, but just as a text string in the content.

    8. Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Why don't you give Prozac a try. If that doesn't work, try cyanide. It'll do wonders for your personality.

  54. WinFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WinFS not only provides all the file system functionality requirements but it also adds indexing and streaming potentialities to file-based data. To access the stored files, WinFS provides a rich set of APIs including the existing Win32 API. With these facilities Win32 developers may continue using Win32 API in Longhorn and also add some query and searching potentialities to applications. WinFS extends APIs potentialities to work with non-file data including personal contacts, email messages and even other qualifying file data. The WinFS data can be structured with an XML schema to explain meaning and purpose. Data can also be semi-structured or unstructured. The entire storage platform must provide the infrastructure to organize, search and share information. When it comes to these aspects, WinFS goes beyond a traditional file system and a relational database system to support these potentialities for all types of data.

    I read that as, "We're having trouble integrating with with Digital Rights Management, as we had envisioned it. Also, we're still deciding on a data-mining algorithm for all the entries on each computer, generated from the collected personal contacts."

  55. Hmm, yeah but Apple sure is never guilty of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, Apple never charges full price for incremental bugfix releases of its OS!

    Oh, wait...

  56. Macs and spokewheels by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think MS is going about this a bit more complicated than necessary. Mac OS 10.4 is said to have similar features. It's not as complicated as you think: simply attach XML metadata to every file (similar to how .NET and a host of other systems do now) and organize based on that.

    The problem with MS's implementation is that they want to tie SQL to it. Noble (it'd vastly improve performance) but unnecessary.

    It still remains to be seen how well Apple pulls this off (my guess: ok, but not perfect). While the implementation is easy, getting it to work as expected will be hard.

    I'd personally be satisfied with just a "spokewheel" system: have every person and event as the axle of a spokewheel and have the files branching off it (business contacts, vacation photos, etc). Not too complicated: just define a person schema in XML, make each person the top key and work off that. I think MS originally wanted to take that approach (based on the MS research projects) but overdeveloped its complexity.

    1. Re:Macs and spokewheels by I_redwolf · · Score: 1

      Dear God, Allah, Number One,

      I wish people who didn't know what they were talking about would stop commenting on subjects with authority. How will bolting on SQL into the filesystem improve performance?

      Does it actually hurt some people to be objective about what they say. To say; "I don't know" or to look up information and papers on a topic before they speak about it? Isn't that what learning is about?

      Current implementations of database filesystems already do exist. They are slower than their counterparts. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad as the new functionality they can provide would be innovative and great for the user app space. Also considering that hardware in terms of spec (space, speed, etc) it only seems logical. However, please stop spreading grossly wrong conjecture.

    2. Re:Macs and spokewheels by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      If I've been following everything correctly, Linux even has these programs being created. Check out the Dashboard and Beagle projects for Gnome:
      http://www.gnome.org/projects/beagle/

    3. Re:Macs and spokewheels by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "How will bolting on SQL into the filesystem improve performance?"

      Two ways. First, any time you're working with large amounts of text, SQL is vastly faster than any of the current indexing systems. Look at (what few) benchmarks have been made. I personally would like a system where I can search on material using established SQL query constructs, as I find the current indexing systems really limited. Simply a case of a bigger toolkit.

      Second, SQL is much better at handling previous queries than current indexing systems. If I search for files of my grandmother, than do it again a few months down the road (after the indexing system has lost my previous query in the cache), it takes just as long. I could set up stored procedures in SQL that'd be much faster. Maybe the past 100 queries would be saved as stored procedures, or maybe the top 50. However this would work, SQL would have an answer for me before I hit the search button. The current indexing systems don't.

    4. Re:Macs and spokewheels by I_redwolf · · Score: 1

      Bolting SQL onto filesystems will not improve filesystem performance. It is not faster and what you are talking about is totally subjective. What indexing systems? What exactly are you talking about? What benchmarks? The rest of your comment has to do with functionality of a search in comparison to searching maybe a database or flatfile. Of course you don't specify. So, how about explaining how a database file system is faster than a standard file system and we can continue from there.

    5. Re:Macs and spokewheels by n8_f · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Where did you get Apple is attaching XML metadata to every file from? I am 99% sure that is complete BS. Spotlight will be creating indexes for files based on their content. XML shouldn't enter into it. How did this get rated so high?

    6. Re:Macs and spokewheels by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "What indexing systems?"

      The two main ones: the "Indexing Service" on 2000, XP and 2003 and the indexing daemon on OS X. According to MS's description, the Indexing Service "Indexes contents and properties of files on local and remote computers; provides rapid access to files through flexible querying language." However, if you mess around with the querying tool (Start, right-click My Computer, Manage, Services and Applications, Indexing Service), you'll notice the query constructs are crude at best.

      There are a host of sites that compare this system, Mac's and the daemons in FreeBSD and Linux. Google them.

      By the way, just because someone uses generic language in a Slashdot post doesn't necessarily mean they "don't know" what they're talking about. Even though this is a "news for nerds" site, I generally don't liter my comments with talk about inner joins and such. Anyone with a modicum of an IQ would realize the flatfile structure of the current indexing systems is nowhere near as fast as a SQL database would be on the same machine.

    7. Re:Macs and spokewheels by I_redwolf · · Score: 1

      I don't use windows; and haven't since 1994.

      There are a host of sites that compare this system, Mac's and the daemons in FreeBSD and Linux. Google them.

      By the way, just because someone uses generic language in a Slashdot post doesn't necessarily mean they "don't know" what they're talking about. Even though this is a "news for nerds" site, I generally don't liter my comments with talk about inner joins and such. Anyone with a modicum of an IQ would realize the flatfile structure of the current indexing systems is nowhere near as fast as a SQL database would be on the same machine.


      Yet you still continue to talk about something you have no clue about. Heh, please don't reply to this. The thread is enough as an example in and of itself. What do Inner joins have to do with a database filesystem? You are comparing what indexing on macs and the daemons in freebsd and linux? What comparisons?

      You don't understand filesystems or how they work at all and then you claim generic language when the simple fact and question remains "How are database filesystems faster". If you've ever worked on a filesystem or simply inquired or spent maybe a couple hours researching the topic you would know, they are not.

      Anyone with a modicum of an IQ would realize the flatfile structure of the current indexing systems is nowhere near as fast as a SQL database would be on the same machine.

      Of course this coming from someone who knows nothing about what they speak. So again as everyone can see simply more wrong information. As I invite others to read this thread I just want to again show that it's pertinent you realize my original question. Obviously, this person wouldn't know that I've worked on filesystems before. Not only that but as I originally said, instead of him saying "I don't know". He posts with authority on a subject he knows nothing about and then tries to follow it up with more authority. On something he has no idea about, so the layman is simply mislead.

      Maybe I should do an article about this?

  57. Is it just me, or ... by evslin · · Score: 1

    ... does anyone else here think even with Microsoft taking some features out to speed up the release of Longhorn that they're going to end up delaying it a few more times anyway?

    1. Re:Is it just me, or ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably right. Microsoft has shown a history of not knowing what the hell they are doing. They're also known for lies and corruption, so, there's no telling when it will be released or how secure it will be.

  58. Yawn..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who really gives a shit? Not me. I stopped using Windows years ago.

  59. If you like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ludite

  60. WinFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who think database file systems like "ground breaking", I would argue it is primarily hype material. As people have pointed out again and again, database file systems have been around for a while and there isn't a huge demand for it.

  61. I have a few questions about WinFS by jdkane · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The FS Article says: "Featuring various new concepts WinFS new data model is capable of storing non-file-data information, which is one of its most remarkable premises. "

    Isn't all information potential file data? Is Microsoft really doing something different than has been done before?

    The article also states "WinFS uses a direct acyclic graph of items (DAG)."

    The math goes back to the 1970's, as referenced by MathWorld Old math can be used in new ways. Is his a new way when it's used in the FS that Microsoft is attempting?

    The articles also says: " the WinFS data model provides the following concepts to describe data structures and organizations: * Types and subtypes. * Properties and fields. * Relationships. * Constraints. * Extensibility. "

    Does the new Reiser4 file system support any of these concepts? -- Is WinFS really as new and exciting as the marketing and media says it is?

    Thanks.

    1. Re:I have a few questions about WinFS by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't all information potential file data? Is Microsoft really doing something different than has been done before?

      Not really, WinFS is a service that runs in the background to help in categorizing and searching for files that are stored in the good ol' NTFS file system. WinFS internally uses NTFS streams to store metadata. NTFS streams are already present and fully supported in both Windows 2000 and XP already, but not that widely used by these operating systems.

      You can make some basic use of streams by right clicking on a file in Windows XP, selecting Properties, and then selecting the Summary tab. The information you type in there is associated with the file as streams. There's a program at Sysinternals.com to display and set any streams for any file.

      Similarly, NTFS supports hard links, junctions (to mount drives as folders), sparse files and more "cool" stuff that the OS doesn't have graphical interfaces for. A bit funny. :-P

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:I have a few questions about WinFS by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Does the new Reiser4 file system support any of these concepts? -- Is WinFS really as new and exciting as the marketing and media says it is?

      ReiserFS and WinFS are two competing philosophies.

      WinFS is a data store. It's a separate, monolithic database which stores meta-information about files on the traditional filing system.

      ReiserFS is about extending existing filing system technology such that data becomes transparent and self describing allowing any kind of querying facility to be layered on top.

      Let me try an explain. Let's say you have a hard disk of OpenOffice Writer documents, which you wish to query. This is hard, because the SXW format is a complex beast. To the operating system it's an opaque series of bytes. Let's see how you'd query photos embedded in these documents:

      Firstly you need to locate and open the file using the POSIX fs apis. Next, use a zip library to navigate the compressed filing-system-within-a-file that zip files are, to locate one of the XML files contained within. Now load up an XML parser and navigate the XML to one of the image nodes. Unfortunately not all information is easily represented using XML: this is one such piece, so it's actually stored as a JPEG encoded binary file ... decode that, and now navigate the structures in memory to arrive at the data you want.

      Word documents are not much better.

      This is an extreme example, but hopefully you see my point. Look at how many APIs were required to get to the wanted information, yet they are all fundamentally the same. ZIP files are miniature filing systems which add a compression feature (and performance!). XML is a tree of nodes: hmm, kind of like a filing system. Binary structures in memory tend to be trees or graphs of information: a bit like a filing system that supports linking.

      What if we could unify these APIs? What if the underlying operating systems filing system was powerful enough to be the superset of all the features these disparate APIs provided? ZIP files are used for compression, for fast access to the contents and because it makes it easy to send them via the internet and manipulate them with modern file managers. XML is used because it's an efficient way to represent a complex tree with many nodes. Binary structures are used because some stuff just can't be easily encoded as text.

      But we have a problem - there are sound technical reasons why openoffice documents are not a sparse collection of files. For one, most filing systems are not fast enough: a file is an expensive thing, opening and reading them even moreso. You don't want a file for every cell in a spreadsheet, or every paragraph in a word processor document. The overhead is too high. There is another problem: files cannot be directories and vice-versa. Having each paragraph as a file may be convenient for search engines but it's not so convenient for users.

      What if files could simultaneously be directories, and what if we used a filing system designed so that a 3 byte file is not an unacceptably inefficient design? What if we could decompose our elaborate file formats with our chunks and headers and streams and DIRENTs into a tree of files all accessed via the POSIX APIs: open(), read(), close() ?

      No longer would the structure of an image embedded in a word processor document be a mysterious and opaque bytestream to other programs. Now it's trivial to trawl the content of files and index them.

      You see, this is the genius of Hans Reiser. He realised that writing indexer plugins for every file format under the sun would never work, it'd never scale, it'd never give users consistently good results. The right way is to make the foundations powerful enough that the concept of file formats itself falls away: by minimizing primitives, by unifiying interfaces, the system becomes more powerful.

      The technical challenges of such an approach are enormous, it can only be done because ReiserFS is not a "bet the company" move, as

    3. Re:I have a few questions about WinFS by vivian · · Score: 1

      The article also states "WinFS uses a direct acyclic graph of items (DAG)."

      Here in Australia (and NZ, I think), DAG is the um.... technical term for the lup of flyblown crap that hangs off the end of a sheep's arse.
      The Acronym seems appropriate, somehow.

    4. Re:I have a few questions about WinFS by KJKHyperion · · Score: 1
      Word documents are not much better.

      No, that's the vital point you missed: Word documents are OLE compound storage documents ("docfiles"). Essentially, structured mini-filesystems. Microsoft even wrote a NTFS plugin (reparse point handler), during the Windows 2000 public beta (one of several plugins developed to show off the new features of NTFS to filesystem filter developers), that expanded docfiles into directories. The reason you don't say a lot of this is that the filesystem driver SDK costs $ 1500 and involves an NDA - and that Microsoft would rather sell you the whole thing as a product apart

      --

      Make a difference - use Windows! (open source clone of Windows NT)

  62. Assurance Plan's are a bad idea. by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dropped of those years ago, as microsoft wasnt putting out product often enough to make it cost effective. ( they go along with the MOLP agreements.. )

    The other hidden problem that few people think about is that if you drop off the plan, ever, you loose the license to use what you have .. Then you have no software... Its a perpetual lease..

    Going retail prevents this problem.. Yes it costs more, and you don't get their 'enterprise support', but at least you are in control.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  63. Re:Why WinFS is not ready by supasam · · Score: 1

    LOL OMG WILL U GUYZ BE MY FRIENDS NOW I TOLD AN EASY JOKE ABOUT MICRO$$$$OOOOOFFFT! LOLZ!! NERDZ!

    Think much?

    Oh, isn't that great, I can't even make fun of the dude because my quote has too many caps in it.

    --


    Suck a lemon?
  64. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people just don't get it, do they. At least the US government has their eyes open.

    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for those links!

  65. Don't know about WinFS but I know the dream by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Informative
    I got 3 pc's now 2 are linux machines so I set them up somewhat transparant. Same home directory. Running apps on the headless one that display on the desktop one. But still it is sometimes hard to find the right one. It is like driving a double clutch car. Not hard or impossible to learn but not exactly without effort either. For one thing by default locate doesn't work accross the network. Since the linux machines are full with HD's I also got some on windows. 3 machines to search for content.

    The dream is to create a "star trek" like computer. Why should I remember the filepath to a file (or in my case wich computer). That is not how I pick a book from the shelf is it. I don't need to remember the exactly title of the linux o'reilly guide. I can find it very fast by the general size and color even feel and the fact it is most likely near my desk.

    The ultimate idea is for you to instantly be able to find what you want without having to remember weird filenames and paths. Even better to be able to find things when you got no idea what the filename is. If you ever had to search for something on a windows shares network you know how hard it is.

    I got one simple example that is very hard to organize. Manga/anime. How do you name the file? Japanese name? Japanese but in roman characters? Translated name? Official licensed translated name? I can always use locate (I store mine on a linux san) but that requires me to know the name. I can't search for a series "about a boy visited by a goddess" I need to search for "ah! my goddess" "oh! my goddess" "ah! megami-sama" etc etc. The only common character is the !

    The ideal search system would allow me to find all the files belonging or related to the series with a simple description. It would show me related series, give me the mp3's with the box covers. Tell me I got the dvd's.

    Not sure if this is what they are trying with winfs but there sure could be a market for the perfect search system. Your 30 level directory works very good for a simple 1 way search system. Kinda like a file cabinet. You can sort the personal records by name. But put it in a database and you can search by anything you want. Even combinations.

    But it is going to very hard to do. All the databases I seen work on the principle: crap in crap out. The trick is not in creating a database file system. The trick is in writing code that can insert content into the database and get meaningfull info on it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Don't know about WinFS but I know the dream by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

      so you would be willing to type in a description for every file you have ?? seems like a time waster, not saver

    2. Re:Don't know about WinFS but I know the dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The dream is to create a "star trek" like computer. Why should I remember the filepath to a file (or in my case wich computer). That is not how I pick a book from the shelf is it. I don't need to remember the exactly title of the linux o'reilly guide. I can find it very fast by the general size and color even feel and the fact it is most likely near my desk.

      OK, now go and do that for books in the library - no card catalog allowed, that would be *metadata* after all.

      Some people have more files on their workstation or server than you do, and more powerful search techniques would be a great help.

    3. Re:Don't know about WinFS but I know the dream by kirkjobsluder · · Score: 1

      Certainly, I think that we do need intelligent searches, however, I think many of the arguments for those searches are dramatically overstated as is the contrast with existing filesystem models.

      Why should I remember the filepath to a file (or in my case wich computer). That is not how I pick a book from the shelf is it. I don't need to remember the exactly title of the linux o'reilly guide. I can find it very fast by the general size and color even feel and the fact it is most likely near my desk.

      Actually, I (and most people who have lots of books in my experience) do have some sort of a filing system. Glancing for look and feel is good when you have a few dozen books, but when you have a few hundred books, it becomes a bit unwieldy. Unfortunately, the current state of my life is that I can generally find a file I'm working on quite a bit quicker than a book I need to find a reference to.

      The ultimate idea is for you to instantly be able to find what you want without having to remember weird filenames and paths.

      You should not be using weird filenames and paths anyway now that most operating systems allow verbose filenames.

      But it is going to very hard to do. All the databases I seen work on the principle: crap in crap out. The trick is not in creating a database file system. The trick is in writing code that can insert content into the database and get meaningfull info on it.

      Which is one reason why I'm not convinced that more metadata will change much of anything. I'm also not convinced that this requires a new filesystem design.

    4. Re:Don't know about WinFS but I know the dream by JamieF · · Score: 1

      >Why should I remember the filepath to a file (or in my case wich computer). That is not how I pick a book from the shelf is it.

      You don't have to. You can use locate or a GUI-based full text search right now.

      If you have 10 books, no you don't need to do a keyword based search. If you have 1,000,000 books, you can't just reach for it and grab it, nor does looking for the size and color help you. Librarians know all about this, which is why they have metadata catalogs with all sorts of juicy information in them.

      I have several hundred books at home and it still takes time to find one (possibly because it's not worth the trouble to create a catalog of them). Which bookshelf is it on? Which shelf? Maybe it's stacked 2 books deep, in which case I have to look behind the front stack to see if it's there. Maybe I don't know what color it is.

      I have a few hundred CDs as well. Are they just tossed in a heap in the corner? No, they're alphabetized. I use artist name and then album name alphabetic sorting; one of my friends sorts first by genre, then by artist.

      My point is, people who are totally disorganized aren't going to be able to find their stuff no matter what tools you give them. There are metadata fields in Word but how many people use them? Only when you feel the pain of disorganization do you actively fight it. If you just hire an IT staff to buy bigger tape drives and faster servers (so you can full-text search every file you've ever created), you're delaying an actual solution to the problem. My wife works at a law firm and they have tons and tons of documents to manage; not surprisingly, they have a law-firm-specific document management system that lets users organize and find stuff.

      Databases are great for searching except for the fact that people can fill them with crap data also, as you indicated. This is not a problem that technology can fix on its own; technology plus user diligence plus some usability research are what's needed... meaning, people have to have tools that are easy to use and which support explicit, easy metadata based searching.

      Your anime search example is no different from an MP3 example. If you're working with an opaque binary file format (as opposed to one like PowerPoint where "grep -l -i -r *" would succeed), somebody has to put the metadata you're looking for on those files. I mean, we can daydream about a search technology that will decompress the audio, do speech-to-text, and search based on the translated text (or decompress the video and OCR the subtitles?), but until then, somebody will have to type stuff in to be searched. If you want to find all the MP3s in your collection that have a female singer singing about the moon, a relational search doesn't realy help if the metadata was never there.

      I think the trick (that Apple and Microsoft are figuring out presently) is that this needs to be an OS-level service (or specification, at minimum) so that developers and users can get used to the idea of metadata being available for every file, separate from long filenames or folder names. How exactly you implement the storage mechanism and the indexing is a minor detail by comparison. The dream you described can't happen as long as filesystems are composed of just a teeny filename with a binary stream attached.

      I think a second major hurdle is the definition of "standard metadata" that says things like what the name of the author name field, copyright field, etc. should look like.

  66. WinFS is like the human mind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy who was modded +5 doesn't understand a simple idea. He's your average naysayer, the kind of guy who would turn funding down to a couple of guys with a ridiculous name like "google." Instant search results. Who would ever want that?

    Here's what WinFS does: Grandma wants a file. She knows the name. The name and the existence of the object is inside of her brain. She types the name, or something about the file, or some fragment of its contents into Microsoft's newfangled search tool, and the results pop up at the moment that the plastic of her mouse button makes a clicking noise. Instantly she's got 29 results. There is no delay on searches when searching a WinFS volume. One thousand results can be displayed the very moment you click the search button. This has a profound effect on the gestalten of interfacing man with the machine, and it's exponentially more useful than it seems on paper. It's like searching on google.

    What if you had to wait while "google scans the internet" for results?

    On countless occasions, I know just what I want. It's in my brain, but I end up spending 50 seconds looking through heirarchies of arbitrarily imposed organizational systems, clicking through folders, and trying to "get at it." If I could just find it as easily as I can think of it, it would take but 2 seconds to get at it. On current Windows systems, I don't bother, because I know that searches are too slow to be useful.

    WinFS is all about making the filesystem more like a human brain, and thus easier for the mind to natively access something which is arranged in a similar way to it.

  67. Could WinFS Prevent Dupe Stories? by Quarters · · Score: 1
  68. Longhoren with Office 2006 by Omnipotent1 · · Score: 1

    My mom is global director of office online... The new office is coming out that year too they are trying to market them together. (of course) More money! Software bundles! More Crashes!

    --
    Im not wrong....the rest of the world is.
  69. WinFS Is A Prime Example Of [new technology] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh this is rich. We just got through a story about outsourcing, and everyone's talk about how new technology will supposedly save us. Now here's a story about some of that new technology, and the talk swings back to how bloated and unnecessary it is.

    You people are your own worst enemy.

  70. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway (Agreed) by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    I agree and you said it well with:
    After a while, even the simplest of searches will bring back a dozen matches. I can't see this working.

    The reason given for this is novice users, who don't know where to put their files. they rely on their default program settings and just dump their files anywhere and then complain when they cannot find them.


    As far as keeping things in order, well, wasn't that the point of the whole "My Documents", "my pics", "my pr0n" folders and such?

    First Microsoft want us to use these folders, so much so that they embedded these folders into the OS and most you can't delete (Outlook express, for instance).

    Now Microsoft wants drives to become a dumping ground for files and we have to search all the time?

    Seems kinda silly, IMO.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  71. Even better by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1, Insightful
    You are right for smart companies that keep talented people around to fix things when they break.

    Unfortuantely most companies will say, "your job [apt-get] is now handled automatically?! You're gone! Wee, we saved 0.025% of our IT budget!" Six months later when the connection fails because some idiot messed up DNS, they have no one left who can figure out how to fix it, and no one who can do it manually...

    --
    Yeah, right.
  72. NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by numbski · · Score: 1

    You know, NTFS has been a thorn in my side for some time now, and I have *NOT* been looking forward to WinFS at all.

    The fact of the matter is that NTFS 5 is the one file system that it appears no one can reliably write to without creating problems, except windows.

    Most file utils want you to boot to DOS, Knoppix boots you to Linux, and if you're lucky, you can read, but not write.

    It drives me up a freaking wall. I've forced Knoppix to mount an NTFS volume r/w, and made a change to boot.ini once, and I got off lucky.

    Perhaps with NTFS 5 still in use in Longhorn, it will buy enough time for someone to finally crack the problems with r/w mounting of NTFS 5?

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      Use Bart's PE Windows XP Live CD if you need to muck around with your NTFS filesystems.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    2. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most file utils want you to boot to DOS, Knoppix boots you to Linux, and if you're lucky, you can read, but not write.

      It drives me up a freaking wall. I've forced Knoppix to mount an NTFS volume r/w, and made a change to boot.ini once, and I got off lucky.


      you do realise knoppix includes a util called captive-ntfs, which allows you to mount ntfs partitions using certian windows files (which it gets from the ntfs partition) for full read/write access? I've used this quite a lot since i found out about it and never had any problems; I'd trust it a whole lot more than I trust the hack-job reverse engineered ntfs write support from the kernel.

      --
      TIAEAE!
    3. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      The current NTFS driver for Linux has _safe_ write support. The only restriction is that you files cannot shrink, expand, move, or anything else that changes the metadata.

      I wonder why not more effort has been put into it - NTFS is a decent filesystem; if you use NT it's what you _should_ use - but it's no major concern to me as I don't have anything valuable on NTFS.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by Trelane · · Score: 1

      I suspect it has something to do with having to boot into Windows, change something, shut down windows, and then look at a huge disk image to see what changed.

      Specs would save a ton of dev work. Do you hear me, DoJ?

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    5. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by eidechse · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder why not more effort has been put into it

      Lot's of effort has been put into it. It's just an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. The amount of effort to reverse engineer/document the internal structures to support read access must have been huge.

      The reason NTFS write access is so difficult to develop is not because because of the NTFS structures themselves, but because the algorithms that the file system driver uses are unknown.

      For example, the details of balancing/re-balancing the b+trees that maintain the indexes. The file system driver has a bunch of criteria as to how many indexes should be in a node, what the maximum depth of the leaf nodes is, and etc.

      That's just one of the algorithms that needs to be figured out in order to have safe write access. There are others (creating/maintaining the data runs, managing resident and non-resident attributes, etc) Figuring these out, with all their special cases and boundary conditions, is difficult. You can either try to make a bazillion tests and hope you catch all the weird corner cases (which is hard, slow, and you never know when you're done) or you can completely reverse engineer the file system driver (also not too easy).

      The consequences of screwing it up are also hard to fully figure out. At best, maybe you just get sucky performance, at worst you completely destroy directories and files.

      It's a tough job just to implement a read, so it makes sense that writes haven't come as far.

    6. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      You could probably get away with running Windows in VMWare or something, and then monitoring changes in the disk image in real time from the host OS.

      In fact, that's probably more reliable, as windows might change files around just by booting up (who knows, why risk it?). this way it's easier to isolate which actions actually made which changes to the file.

    7. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Then I have a question: was there this much trouble reverse engineering FAT32? Or was FAT32 easier because it was a simpler file system?

    8. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by Trelane · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly. I don't actually do any reverse-enginnering of the file system. However, my point was that such reverse-engineering, particularly when it has to be 100% or (potentially vital!) data is lost, is a very time-intensive process.

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    9. Re:NTFS 5 and 'everyone else' by eidechse · · Score: 1

      Short answers:

      No: There was reverse engineering done for the FAT file systems, but vastly less.

      Yes: It's a much simpler file system.

      More explanation:

      FAT file systems just use a linked list of cluster locations to "tell" where on the disk the file is. The head of the list is in the files directory entry. That's about it. It has no indexes, no real performance features, and only one rudimentary (barely) integrity feature.

      As such, FAT file systems have very few data structures involved with their inner workings. NTFS has, at the very least, dozens.

      Also, since FAT file systems lack the performance features (specifically the indexes) there are no complicated algorthms to reverse engineer.

  73. What Will WinFS Do For Me? by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

    OK, so it's a way of sharing data across applications etc, etc, but can someone give me an actual real-life situation where I would benefit from it? Not a sarcastic comment, I'm genuinely interested.

    1. Re:What Will WinFS Do For Me? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but whenever I save a document as HTML in Word (as seldom as possible, OpenOffice does a much cleaner job) there are all sorts of crazy tags floating around it. For example, if I refer to Greece, it will end up with something like <o:place>Greece</o>. I've also seen similar junk surround tags. This MSDN blog seems to have the dirt on it. I figure they'll try to build relationship data from that.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  74. Longhorn a long ways away by imnoteddy · · Score: 1
    There are really no details on what will be in the Microsoft 2006 release. Probably a case of shipping whatever is ready to go out when mid-2006 rolls around.

    So WinFS, the searchable file system, won't be there? Well Slashdot recently had a story about Linux based efforts to provide this. Apple is talking about this for OS X 10.4 due out in 2005. And there's been speculation that Google might do something like this.

    Is it possible that the other players (Linux/Apple/Google) who tend to release upgrades on a regular, incremental basis could get way ahead of MS? An interesting possiblity.

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
    1. Re:Longhorn a long ways away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is it possible that the other players (Linux/Apple/Google) who tend to release upgrades on a regular, incremental basis could get way ahead of MS?

      Well, as far as the truly intelligent people are concerned, GNU/Linux is already way ahead of Microsoft, and I don't think it's going to change. Too many people/companies have been burned by Microsoft's lies and incompetence.

    2. Re:Longhorn a long ways away by kidgenius · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would say that in the next few years, Linux and Apple will be releasing stuff that will just blow us all away. We know that Microsoft is going to try to have an OpenGL GUI. We know that they were wanting meta-data searches. And there are other things that we probably don't know about. It seems like Apple does a yearly release, and each year they are rolling out one or two new things each time that are not huge, but they are very cool things. Expose, the new widget system, etc are all good examples. The freedesktop project and xorg should be gaining steam and I wouldn't be surprised if we see OpenGL desktop rendering in Linux within a year or year and a half. As you mentioned, the Beagle project for Gnome is already doing meta-data searches (and it's of course being worked on currently). If you look at what's going on right now, Apple/Linux either currently have, will have shortly, or will have perfected everything that Microsoft has said they will have in 2 years. So when Microsoft comes out, there is not going to be any "catching up" really, except from the Microsoft camp. When Longhorn ships, I would be willing to bet that there are some new/exciting things in Apple/Linux that Microsoft won't be able to implement until the release thereafter.

      The one area that I would say Microsoft is at a disadvantage is the very rabid and outspoken communities that other OSes have. Linux has an advantage due to sheer numbers of how many programmers work on various components at any one time. Apple has users that are creating some very cool software (Konfabulator) and then Apple takes that idea and runs with it (yes, i know the story behind the new widget system). Microsoft is very seperated from the user base and what it's users want/need. Apple listens to its users, and Linux is the users. I would say there is a clear advantage there.

    3. Re:Longhorn a long ways away by r3m0t · · Score: 1

      Microsoft also listens to its users.

      In Longhorn, the login screen now includes a clock.

  75. Haha by oR3n · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anyone here truly surprised? Doesn't seem likely to me. With products such as windows, bill gates doesn't need to do much more than sit and pick at his ass all day. ^_^ Aside from that, though, I'm not too sure that even if Longhorn comes out in 2006, it'll be entirely bug-free, or that it will be even close to the supposed stability of Mac OS X. Well there's one thing Windows might be better than Mac at, and that's subtracting. ;-)

  76. ahem Apollo met its goals by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Ahem Apollo mets its goals except for one.. how about MS?

    -Men on moon before decade ended-JF Kennedy
    -The only delay was fter the Apollo fire on launch pad..and that was only one year delay

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  77. big problems by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This vaporware evaporation is a good example of how Microsoft inhibits innovation. Not due to some malicious plot by Bill Gates. Rather the inability of his giant, complicated organization to nimbly publish new technologies, because of the ramifications of any change to their monolithic system. If their architecture were simpler or more elegant, they could point their billions of dollars and thousands of programmers at any new tech, armed with the inside expertise of the other Windows systems with which it must interoperate, and roll out something new in a few months. WinFS has been announced so many times, and would do so much good for Microsoft, that it's obvious Microsoft's execs want to put it out. The captain of the Titanic wanted to turn away from the iceberg, too, but his ponderous state-of-the-art craft couldn't avoid the sudden obstacle. Let's just hope there are enough lifeboats to save the hundreds of millions of Windows users, and the rest of us don't get sucked down in the whirlpool.

    "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."
    - Unix fortune teller

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  78. Re:IT the movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this might be off topic, and just incase i'm posting anon to protect my karma BUT

    http://www.electricstate.com/articles/defuglify- sl ashdot

    go there, put the javascript on your firefox bookmark toolbar, click it, VIOLA PRETTY SLASHDOT GREEN AGAIN ON ALL /. stuff when u need it!!!

  79. Huge Prior Art by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    It's not even a good porn name. They should have used something like "Long Dong Silver" or something. Creativity people!

    Long Dong Silver? Are you serious? I have just done a little research and there seems to be a huge amount of prior art on images.google.com (and "huge" is surely an understatement, while "art" is probably an exaggeration).

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  80. good point by BlackShirt · · Score: 1

    I got one simple example that is very hard to organize. Manga/anime. How do you name the file? Japanese name? Japanese but in roman characters? Translated name? Official licensed translated name? I can always use locate (I store mine on a linux san) but that requires me to know the name. I can't search for a series "about a boy visited by a goddess" I need to search for "ah! my goddess" "oh! my goddess" "ah! megami-sama" etc etc. The only common character is the !

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119715&op=R eply&threshold=2&commentsort=0&tid=201&mode=nested &pid=10096383

    1. Re:good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because Microsoft has a history of lies/deception and the Windows OS has a history of being terribly insecure?

      I won't ever trust anything Microsoft creates.

  81. Dupe, dupe, dupe... by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1
  82. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Longhorn is *still* two years off... since 1999 or so, right?

    Maybe it'll ship bundled with Duke Nukem Forever.

  83. He was being ironic, or so I understood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he said they were _way_ ahead he was implying they were alone in that. This leads to the idea that these products aren't successful as everyone thinks.

    1. Re:He was being ironic, or so I understood. by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I really missread this one:)

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  84. Look where Be is today... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    ... at Apple, perhaps?

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:Look where Be is today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Be bought out by Palm? I wasn't aware that Apple licensed any of the technologies from BeOS.

    2. Re:Look where Be is today... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      They didn't license the technology (well, maybe they did, but I don't know), but they hired the engineer who wrote BeFS. I don't think Spotlight works quite the same way, but Apple certainly has an advantage over Microsoft in terms of experience.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  85. Yet another version of Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...shipping when it has to ship, not when it's done.

    The more things change...

  86. Don't mod parent down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He/she does have a valid point.

  87. good point by BlackShirt · · Score: 1

    Why can't you just accept new technology and first take a look at it? It's not that the good old tree like filesystems are the best ones. They do indeed have problems. Have you ever read about data modelling? Have you studied some papers about that? Obviously not, otherwise you would know what the current state of data representation is. Hierarchical systems are indeed some of the worst if it comes to expressive semantics. There are new concepts outthere, trying to solve those problems, and, yes, they come along with a new paradigm.

    If you are too lazy to learn and accept new paradigms, you don't deserve to be a geek.

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119715&op=R eply&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=201&mode=neste d&pid=10096235

  88. We all know... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

    ...That Longhorn will really just be a new Interface theme for Windows XP, which is really just sort-of a new interface theme for Windows 2000.... of course longhorn will introduce a slew of new and exciting bugs.
    I am a little excited about these next-generation bugs-- go Microsoft!

  89. They should 'license' Reiser4 by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    What they oughtta-do is pay Hans Reiser some 'hush money' to use reiser4 core code, and implement their own repacking and indexing daemons. They could also write filesystem plugins for NTFS-style ACLs, compression, and encryption. I can't see why that wouldn't work.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  90. Re:Hmm, yeah but Apple sure is never guilty of thi by edgar_is_good · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? 10.1 was free to 10.0 users. Neither 10.2 nor 10.3 would be considered "bug fixes", and Apple still supports 10.2 with security updates. Apple may charge for incremental upgrades (one can debate whether they are incremental or significant), but not for bug fixes.

  91. AAH! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE STOP CANCELING WINFS? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    Seems like every new version of Windows from 2000 onwards was supposed to have a new file structure that allowed for database like access.

    STOP STOP STOP CANCELING IT!

    Ugh!

    Oh well, old new, MS's new file system canceled AGAIN! Wait another 3-4 years to see if it is in the next release.

    1. Re:AAH! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE STOP CANCELING WINFS? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tell me about it. The sad part is that this filesystem sounds like IBM's jfs/jfs2, which has been around for eternity. It's being hyped up to the cazillion degree like it's something special. It's NOT. So the order goes...

      FAT16

      FAT32

      NTFS

      NTFS5

      WINFS

    2. Re:AAH! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE STOP CANCELING WINFS? by One+Louder · · Score: 1

      It's even older than that - Microsoft first started talking about this in 1994. It was called Object File System back then, and has been promised and subsequently removed from every operating system release since then.

    3. Re:AAH! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE STOP CANCELING WINFS? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for the flashback.

      The really sad part is, MS keeps dropping the ball, but nobody in the OSS movement can seem to pick it up....

      *COUGH COUGH*

    4. Re:AAH! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE STOP CANCELING WINFS? by imroy · · Score: 1

      *cough* GNOME Storage *cough*

    5. Re:AAH! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE STOP CANCELING WINFS? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Call me when it has replaced the bin/usr/etc hiarchy.

  92. Re:Hmm, yeah but Apple sure is never guilty of thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out how hard I can jam my fingers into my ears and how tightly I can sew my eyes shut!

  93. Windows Millenium anyone? by Chip7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This smells a lot like the failed WindowsME. As i recall it was supposed to be the next grand thing in computing. A step as big as the one from Win3.1 to 95. It ended up as a mere add-on for Windows98 with more crashes-prone features than you can point a "shrug and reboot" attitude at!

    If they keep droping ground breaking feature like that, in 2006 they'll be releasing a "Windows XP longhorn edition"! :-)

    --
    -- If you actually say LOL instead of laughing, maybe it's time to go outside! --
  94. We'll see WinFS when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone else writes it. M$ has never innovated much of anything. They buy/steal it and then market it. Think Word,Excel,Visio etc. What "gotta have it" features will be included in their next OS release?
    What enormous leap was made from 2k to XP? They have to put out something so their customers can perceive some form of value. The customers that don't buy into
    their upgrade agreement will stick w/ NT. The developers that can actually make this new FS will be swimming in an ocean of M$ cash. Because I doubt that, given their usual MO, they'll pull it off.

  95. Sounds like their schedule for HPFS by nedron · · Score: 1

    Microsoft convinced IBM to trash development on their own file-system codenamed 'Hilda' by showing them charts and graphs, etc., of how great HPFS was.

    So, IBM, in it's usual pattern, bought the presentation and stopped all work on Hilda. THen waited... and waited... and waited.

    Turns out, MSFT hadn't written a line of HPFS code when they gave the presentations on HPFS. And when OS/2 2.0 finally arrived years late, it had a buggy new filesystem written by MSFT. One of its stellar features was the disappearing filesystem!

    -David

    --


    * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
  96. A new release strategy by bushidocoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think what we're seeing is MS beginning to adapt to the release schedules of their OSS competitors.

    If you think of new paid MS desktop releases as whole number releases of Gnome/KDE (substantial changes, new environment), MS is in pickle trying to compete with the "minor" even numbered releases the Linux desktop teams are pushing out. Every six months, Gnome users get a little more - that's hard to fight when you only release new OS changes every 4 years.

    Whenever people asked me why they should upgrade from Win2k to WinXP Pro, I always said "You'll get a new annoying cartoon interface and a couple nice internal things, but mainly, you go with XP because of the periodic updates that become available to it". I think if you look at XP that was released and compare that to the XP users have now (with journal tablet support, two new versions of the windows media framework, three revisions of built in wireless support, and now native bluetooth support all the other stuff tossed into SP2), I think that everyone has to agree (whether they like XP or not is a different story) that its a substantially changed product. This is ignoring the products that were pushed to all previous versions of windows (.NET Framework, IE and OE, DirectX 9, etc). Its also not just cosmetic features - The windows userland driver model is being deployed mid-XP release as opposed to in a new Windows version.

    From the look of it, the changes keep coming - by the time Longhorn rolls out, XP users will also have the same major version of .NET 2.0 Longhorn will have a two years beforehand, Indigo a year in advance, the free Yukon embeddable data engine two years beforehand and now a substantial slice of Avalon, not to mention at least 1 more media framework and substantially increased device support - XP is a completely different beast. Hopefully we'll get a new version of IE that isn't the equivelant of shoving a rod of Uranium 235 down your shorts too (and for those who don't think its important when you're using Firefox anyway... have you looked at how many apps mshtml.dll is embedded in?).

    It looks like WinFS follows the same strategy - don't buy Longhorn because its completely different from XP - buy it because its slightly different than XP at release, but also because you'll be eligible for a four years update cycle that will end with Longhorn being substantially different than XP's resting place.

    1. Re:A new release strategy by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very interesting analysis. From what you're projecting, it's not too far a leap to a subscription based model, which is where MS has wanted to head all along. (Remember the hue and cry when they announced moves in this direction before?)

      It's also somewhat similar to the way Apple rolls out OS X updates. (That has also caused consternation among a small vocal minority of OS X users that don't want to pay for upgrades but don't want to be "left behind".)

      Red Hat, Sun, Covalent, and others are embracing subscription models.

      So it wouldn't surprise me to see MS try and put a subscription model under the radar. And it might not be such a bad thing, now that MS is facing pricing pressure from OSS.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  97. Cut-n-Paste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...Getting 'Longhorn' to customers in 2006 will provide important advances in performance, security and reliability..."

    Just like I cut-n-pasted this quote, Microsoft cut and paste it too except they change the name of the OS. Fill in Win 98,Me, 2000, XP... etc and you virtually have the same press statement every time.

  98. Typical IE user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mouse gesture? Is that like this?

  99. SQLite will be in 10.4 by Master+Of+Ninja · · Score: 1

    One thing a lot of people haven't noticed is that SQLite will be in 10.4 . Read it on Apple's Tiger preview page (right at the bottom, last paragraph).

    While they're not specifiying what they're doing with it, or if it'll even be tied to the filesystem, is seems to be in there for some reason, and apple will put it to use.

  100. Avalon == GDI by Halcyon-X · · Score: 1

    Avalon is not the new DirectX, it is the new GDI. It will replace the Windows interface rendering system, accelerating it and providing new features with 3D, and providing XAML to all applications. Here is a reference.

    --

    .sig: Open Source, Open Mind

  101. MSFT just can't do it any more by thegrendel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is an indication that Microsoft is having trouble bringing in
    complex projects. It hints at deep organizational problems, and maybe
    basic flaws in the factory assembly line approach to developing software.

    And why have so many smart people left MSFT? Nathan Myrhvold, Rob Glaser,
    Charles Simonyi, Rick Belluzo, and others . . . Maybe it's just not a
    good environment for nurturing talent.

    And Dave Cutler, Bill's star project leader, the guy who brought in NT
    ten years back -- Cutler looks like he's burned out.

    Yes, MSFT is definitely on the downward trajectory.

    1. Re:MSFT just can't do it any more by stealth.c · · Score: 1

      Netcraft confirms. Microsoft is dying.

  102. HPFS by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative
    HPFS was available with OS/2 1.2 in 1989.

    I used it for many years and never had any problems with loss of data or file system corruption.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  103. Assurance Plans from the right vendors work fine by msobkow · · Score: 1

    The problem is not assurance or maintenance plans, the problem is the vendor. IBM DB/2, Oracle, Sybase, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, and hundreds of other vendors provide support and maintenance contracts.

    The difference is that they actually fix bugs and security problems instead of pushing "new features".

    As to the announced date -- it's from Microsoft. Since when has Microsoft delivered a project on schedule? NT 3.5 was late, 4.0 was late, Win2K/NT5 was late, and so was WinXP.

    The only thing I can schedule by the 2006 date is knowing I have at least until then before I need to worry about budget planning. I have work to do that needs to be built with reliable products available now, not more vapourware.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  104. Floppies Burn Nicely by silverfuck · · Score: 1

    Floppies burn remarkably well... Just be careful of the carpet for the dripping. CDs on the other hand don't burn easily. I've only tried twice and only ended up dripping melted, bubbling plastic onto my hand.

    Not much else computer-wise burns. Cable insulation will if you try hard enough, but is rather miserable. Anything metal, needless to say, forget it, and PCBs seem to be made to be flame-retardant (here's a rather shocking example of why).

    Needless to say, friends are learning to keep me away from lighters (especially two at once; Setting light to the handle of one lighter with another is very fun... Until it burns through the plastic and reaches the fluid! Big Mistake!)

    --
    You know you've been IMing too long when you almost say 'lol' out loud to a non-geeky friend...
    1. Re:Floppies Burn Nicely by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Aluminum burns VERY well. Al+O2 is a very fast reaction. The outside of any Al surface is a layer of Alluminum oxide, which forms instantly on contact with air. But since that won't burn, getting the Al to ignite is hard.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  105. I agree, I would also add to that: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    the reason why I prefer a GUI to a CLI : visual organisation of data.

    On my computer, I designed my own desktop image in Photoshop. In large words and coloured areas, I have "regions" of stuff that is instantly available to me, and arranged intuitively and visually. So, my upper left area is my "VIDEO" area, and just below that is AUDIO. Below that is WEBSITE, where there are folders to everything having to do with my website and web activities (such as blogs, posts, audio filez, etc.). On the right side of the screen is SYSTEM where I have shortcuts to everything in my system, so I don't have to go drilling down into My Computer, and then SHORTCUTS where I organise the desktop shortcuts to various apps. There's one more area in the lower center, called VARIOUS, and it has folders and shortcuts to sundry files, arranged according to necessity and fiat.

    In short: I have almost instant access to anything I do on my computer, and filing it can't be simpler: Desktop / whatever. I have this system on both of my Macintosh computers and my Windows box, and it works great. It's What A GUI Is Built For. When I resurrect the ancient weezing compaq, I'll put a similar organisation system in the GUI for SUSE.

    If you file stuff intelligently in the first place and use the GUI creatively, it obviates the need for funky ass WinFS nonsense.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  106. Sure by Halcyon-X · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But they didn't have to integrate it with the legacy Windows code base. Apple did OS X more or less from scratch. Windows never had a foundation for this type of thing.

    --

    .sig: Open Source, Open Mind

    1. Re:Sure by killjoe · · Score: 1

      In apples case there is no need to integrate it with any legacy code base. It's just a simple plug in into the filesystem. Maybe AFS is more modular then NTFS and this kind of thing can be easily plugged in.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Sure by JamieF · · Score: 1

      >Apple did OS X more or less from scratch

      Yeah, never mind that FreeBSD and NextStep stuff they used. It doesn't really do much.

    3. Re:Sure by JamieF · · Score: 1

      What does the Andrew File System have to do with this?

      Oh, I get it. You don't even know what filesystems are available on Mac OS X. Feel free to speculate about possible design advantages of things you can't even be bothered to name, though. "That, uh... Mac thing."

      Thanks for your insightful post.

    4. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I'm sure 99% of the new stuff was just BSD and the older MacOS code worked without a hitch. They just slapped an Apple sticker on it and were done!

  107. Please don't turn this into a religious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or else you will ruin the joke. I can see how something like this could be beneficial but not in a religious way.

    And it's true that most costumers will save on average $287 when the switch to Geico.

  108. Why the fuck do I bother to read slashdot comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people are all fucking clueless mouthbreathing MS bashers.
    No mentions of Indigo, the new .NET, Aero, or Avalon in any of the comments.

    Any informative comments here are pearls before swine.

  109. Avalon axed also? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over at the register they're claiming Avalon has been axed also. Avalon goes

  110. I really thought it'd be different this time by stealth.c · · Score: 1
    But it looks like Microsoft is pulling the same old vaporware trick again. Whether they wanted to or not.

    I honestly thought they weren't going to release Longhorn until it was done; until it had what they said it was going to have. I was starting to think it might be good enough to swat down the Linux competition long enough for MSFT to catch its breath.

    I suspected this before, but now I think I'm convinced: The term "Longhorn" just refers to "whatever sneaks out the door when the deadline hits, we're not really sure". So what is this thing going to be, anyway? A bunch of new proprietary networking protocols and 3d-accelerated OS services? At least we can hope its security dashboard will be more refined than XP2's. Unix-izing the division between Administrator and User would also be a very simple, colossal step in the right direction (as we all keep saying). Here's hoping it doesn't suck.

  111. Expected by CrypticSpawn · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I beleived them when they said Windows XP wouldn't need to be rebooted when installing software. They had WinXP so hyped up, I almost thought it was a new Operating System.

  112. The more things change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the better Mac OS X looks, new hardware purchase required or not.

  113. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now no WinFS!

    First it was "no WinFS over the network"!

    What next? Roll back NTFS to FAT32?

    We TOLD YOU they couldn't do it! Did you believe us? Oh, no, the Windows trolls know best! Microsoft can do no wrong!

    Now the Windows trolls will say, "Microsoft didn't cancel WinFS! They just postponed it!"

    Whoop-de-doo, morons!

    Meanwhile, Reiser 4 on Linux lays the groundwork for enhanced metadata reporting by allowing the efficient storage of millions of small files in the file system.

    Where will Linux be in 2006 after two more years of development?

    Faster, more secure, more reliable, and heavily enhanced, that's where.

    Have a nice day, Windows trolls!

    Mod this flamebait, mod this troll! Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mother: "Darling, I can hear yelling from the basement again. I think junior is on that computer of his, on the internet!"
      Father: "Honey, I told ya not to worry about him. He's only 27 - they're excitable at that age. When he gets a job, he'll settle down."

  114. Re:Yes Avalon included by Angostura · · Score: 1

    ... which says "Avalon and Indigo will be part of Longhorn"

    The Register piece was written prior to the announcement.

  115. For those that didn't RTFA's... by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a slighly more detailed list of changed plans:

    - No WinFS
    - WinFX, the new API to replace Win32 will also be released for Windows 2000 and XP.
    - Indigo, the new communications infrastructure for Longhorn will be released for Windows 2000 and XP.
    - Avalon, the presentational subsystem in Longhorn will be released for Windows 2000 and XP.

    So, in essence, it seems like the difference will be as great as that between Windows 2000 and XP -- a bit of polish and a new interface, maybe semi-3D this time. And that's when Microsoft is working hard? I have no idea why I should check out Longhorn as Windows XP will be far more mature at the time (and maturity plays a huge role in Microsoft's products), and Longhorn seemingly won't even bring any major new features. :-S

    I have no idea why they're backporting a lot of key features to XP and 2000 either. I would understand it better if they developed under an open source model, but this company should want profit from selling licenses! Huh?

    By the way, WinFS was never a file system, it's supposed to be an extension to NTFS. So one of the links that say "more than a file system" is horribly incorrect.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  116. hello? by I+judge+you · · Score: 1

    Far be from me to interrupt another AMD lover swooning on slashdot...

    I thought the buffer overrun protection was AMD's idea, with the NX page flag.

    Buffer overrun protection is more than NX. Much of XP was recompiled with VS 2003 with its buffer security checks enabled.

    That I know. But since this is slashdot, let me say a few things that I'm just guessing about:

    -the concept of "buffer overrrun protection" existed before AMD decided to implement NX.

    -non-executable page capability existed on non-x86 hardware well before AMD's NX.

    Sorry to interrupt. You may now reinsert your tounge in AMD's ass.

  117. And This Happens How? by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    I mentioned tools as part of the problem. Lets say your digital camera has 500 pictures. Even if you have the desire to in detail setup the metadata for these 500 pictures the amount of time necessary to do it is staggering. You could easily spend more time maintaining the pictures instead of enjoying them.

    You also neglect the thing that metadata means different things to different systems. One person might care if the pictures are near the ocean or in the mountains so they can search against that. The tools to express these features aren't impssible but are beyond what most "Nana" level users care about.

    WinFS will work great for document archiving systems like SharePoint. It will do nothing for Nana and her thousands of images.

  118. Re:the Longhorn name by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

    It is called longhorn because you're really going to get screwed this time.

    --
    The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
  119. No, the system would "know" the description by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    I do believe that the whole idea that MS has had that local search and internet search where integrated. So it would "know" the music I have on disc, could find box covers and reviews and artist site because it could both search locally and the net.

    Anyway, yeah what you say is right. The problem I think is not for MS to come up with a database filesystem. The problem is getting the system to input files with meaningfull descriptions.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  120. As for the OpenGL desktop by stealth.c · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I am still reminded of Sun's Project Looking Glass. They showed in a big presentation to hundreds/thousands of people a desktop system where the windows were 3d panels, with little buttons and tools embedded on the sides; you could flip them any which way, watch a video from behind. You could stack all the windows edgewise on the side of the screen with one click, and restore them with another. It looked intuitive, concise, and efficient; a very very clever extension of the desktop metaphor we're all used to. And it was WORKING. It looked like they could release it tomorrow. And this was in 2003.

    The only Microsoft 3d desktop demonstration I can recall seeing was some obscure handycam video of some guy moving 2d windows around inside a WindowsXP mod called SphereXP. Not to bash the guy's efforts but by comparison it looked hacked together and confusing (especially for "Aunt Tillie"). I'm looking at research.microsoft.com right now and the video of Microsoft guys talking about a 3d desktop... Then they show their implementation of one. It. Is. A. Mess. It is beyond description. You really have to see it for yourself. Nobody would want this. If you thought people's Windows desktops now were cluttered, organizational trainwrecks, you should see this thing. It would make Aunt Tillie's head spin--if it didn't give her motion sickness first.

    I'm inclined to agree with you that Microsoft may already have lost its position of leadership. Listening to the guys in the research.microsoft.com video, it sounds like MSFT is mostly populated by PHB's now.

    1. Re:As for the OpenGL desktop by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      I'll agree. Looking glass blew me away when I first saw it. And I also agree that it looked like they could've released it the very next day. You actually now can download it if you want, and they've even gone so far as to open source it. Here's some linakge: https://lg3d-core.dev.java.net/lg3d-getting-starte d.html

  121. This is what you want: by Tony · · Score: 1

    Gnome Storage. Mr. Nickell is doing a brilliant job with it, too.

    Not that this is a new idea or anything. Oracle has had an RDBMS-based filesystem for years. Plus, really all Microsoft is doing is taking a metadata system, adding relationships between files (with no real definition of how those relationships are defined and maintained, that I can find), a background search system, and other nifty features that have been explored in other filesystems (such as BeFS).

    Nothing really that revolutionary, except that it's going into MS-Windows. Someday. Maybe before this decade is out, even.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  122. What You Should Use by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    The fact of the matter is that NTFS 5 is the one file system that it appears no one can reliably write to without creating problems, except windows. Most file utils want you to boot to DOS, Knoppix boots you to Linux, and if you're lucky, you can read, but not write.

    You should use captive-ntfs on Knoppix, or better yet:

    1. Knoppix STD -- Security Tools Sistribution, a customized distribution of the Knoppix Live Linux CD. Boot to the CD and you have Knoppix-STD. That would include a customized linux kernel (2.4.21 with ntfs rw, openmosix, and superfreeswan patches), Fluxbox windows manager, incredible hardware detection and hundreds of applications. Boot without the CD and you return to your original operating system. Aside from borrowing power, peripherals and some RAM, Knoppix-STD doesn't touch the host computer.
    2. Local Area Security Linux -- a Live CD distribution with a small footprint. Containing over 200 information security and administration related tools. As well as a full desktop environment and office productivity applications. With such a small footprint L.A.S. Linux can be optionally loaded and run from physical RAM (assuming there is 256MB or more). We currently have 2 different versions of L.A.S. to fit two specific size requirements.
    3. dyne:bolic -- a GNU/Linux distribution simply running from a CD, without the need to install anything, able to recognize most of your devices and periferals: sound, video, TV, network cards, firewire, usb devices and more. It is optimized to run on slower computers, turning it into a full media station: the minimum you need is a pentium1 or k5 PC 64Mb RAM and IDE CD-ROM, or a modded XBOX game console -- and if you have more than one, you can easily do clusters.
    4. F.I.R.E. -- Forensic and Incident Response Environment Bootable CD, a.k.a. DMZS-Biatchux, a portable bootable cdrom based distribution with the goal of providing an immediate environment to perform forensic analysis, incident response, data recovery, virus scanning and vulnerability assessment.

    I hope it helps.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  123. M$ has to wait for it to be written first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    WinFS, Microsoft's next-generation file system, would not be complete in time for this release - surprising, since this was the most hyped component of the next iteration of Windows.

    Of course it isn't. No open source projects have been started yet to try to beat Microsoft to the punch. And without source code to steal, how can Microsoft be expected to come up with a product?

  124. Beyond What Any Desktop User Would Need? by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    A feature that solves no problem. An interesting idea placed in the wrong location. And I'm glad its shelved. On paper, this sounds neat kind of in a thesis paper sort of way. But the practicality of it was way beyond what any desktop user would need.

    You mean, beyond 640kB?

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  125. That was exactly my point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was exactly my point

  126. Actually by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    FS stands for "Future Storage." And WinFS isn't being pushed to the next version of Windows after Longhorn. It will be available in beta form for Longhorn, and will probably be a standard download off of Windows Update.

    Didn't we already see this news article last week? I guess there's never a wrong time to bash Microsoft.

  127. Re:We Don't need WinFS Anyway (Agreed) by Net_Wakker · · Score: 1
    As far as keeping things in order, well, wasn't that the point of the whole "My Documents", "my pics", "my pr0n" folders and such?
    the problem is, when you're working on a project, you're going to have wordprocessor-documents, spreadsheets, presentations, whathaveyou that you'd like in one folder. Now you're using your spreadsheet program that by default stores everything under "My spreadsheets", and your wordprocessor that stores everything under "My Docs" and there chaos starts, because from your project point of view, my pics, my pr0n, my britney just doesnt work. This is the point where virtual folders, such as can be created by evolution and kmail (possibly others, too) come in handy, and the way I see it, virtualizing folders is what MS tries to do fully automagically with their winFS.
  128. No WinFS, No Avalon - Ah hahahahahahahaha !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Par for the course for Monopoly$oft...
    Mac's are already years ahead.

    http://www.theregister.com/2004/08/27/microsoft_ de couples_longhorn/

  129. Annouce WinFS...Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Annouce WinFS

    2. Allow OpenSource People to Do All the Work

    3. Steal OpenSource Code ...

    4. Profit

  130. MODS: TROLL ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be taken in by this idiot--he has accounts under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. He has a history of astroturfing for Microsoft, bashing anything Open Source, using lies and half-truths to get modded up, karma whoring, and the usual trolling (under his bonch account, he got a troll posted to the front page of Slashdot).

    All you have to do to check the veracity of this is to look at the posting history of his two old personnae (linked above) and his current one to figure it out.

    Please do not mod this jerk up--every time you do the Slashdot S/N ratio goes down while bonch/Overly Critical Guy/rd_syringe just laughs at you.

    This has been a public service announcement

    1. Re:MODS: TROLL ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't he have to be a MS employee (and not admit it) to be an Astroturfer? Perhaps anybody on Slashdot who is a open source zealot and actually contributes to open source should admit it or be labeled an Astroturfer. Or do we have the opposite problem: people who say they contribute, but really don't?

    2. Re:MODS: TROLL ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be an employee of MS to astroturf for them--you just have to spread around their FUD, half-truths and outright lies. Since when does that require you to be in someone's employ?

      Think a little. Sheesh!

    3. Re:MODS: TROLL ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be fair, he has never tried to hide his previous incarnations

  131. You're == abbreviation of "you are" by leonbrooks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Your == belongs to you

    Yes, people who post as AC all the time are lazy and annoying. I wish they wouldn't do it. However, I'm glad the AC option exists despite the trolling and other abuse that happens under it. As in real life, it causes a lot of low-level annoyance plus the occasional life-saver.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  132. It can by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    The OS (as Linux and many others do) can check why the pagefault happened and raise a segfault if it's being loaded at CS:PC and shouldn't be. Note that this is quite do-able even without NX or the like, the reason MS-Windows doesn't do more checking along those lines is because the internal structure is too chaotic (it really has degraded quite a bit since it was VMS 5.0 (AKA MICA) - or at least, spelling-error compatible with it).

    NX-style bits and better have existed since at least DECsystem-10 days; their absence from the x86 architecture is mute testimony to its inherent bankruptcy. And I should add in the true spelling/grammar Nazi spirit that discussion of lesser architectural flaws is moot.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  133. Reliable products? Simplify your life! by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Delete MS-Windows from consideration entirely. Yes, I am serious.

    Start pestering your vertical market suppliers for a Linux edition now; that gives them nearly two years to get an act, and if they can port it to Linux (or to be more specific, off MS-Windows), then they can port it everywhere so if you elect to go FreeBSD or OS X instead, it doesn't matter much.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  134. HFS+ by TheInternet · · Score: 1

    In apples case there is no need to integrate it with any legacy Maybe AFS is more modular then NTFS

    The default Mac OS X filesystem is HFS+

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    Tree House Ideas
  135. Freudian blip by erik's+dad · · Score: 1

    "the most hyped component of the next iteration of Windows." I first read this as "the next irritation of Windows." Actually, I suspect "iteration" is a typo.

  136. Re:Yes Avalon included by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Yeah, that's what they're saying NOW!

    In another X months, it will be:

    "Avalon dumped from Longhorn!"

    Just like WinFS was guaranteed to be in Longhorn just a few months ago.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  137. Security hardware has existed since 386. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of the issues we have are because we are running in flat memory models. The Intel architecture from the 386 onward is quite capable of supporting a model where applications have segments that can may be quite protected from each other.

    Couldn't you theoretically give each thread its own selector, rather than process? And, if you want to get down to it, couldn't you have thousands of selectors, and maybe even go down to an even more granualar level than threads? Like, I always thought that many of the hardware security features of the x86 are actually not used.

    --
    This is my sig.
  138. Metadata and App Vendors by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Not to mention, getting every popular 3rd party app to conform even if they didn't mind publishing that kind of data about documents seems like it'd be a long and tedious task.
    Indeed. Note that NTFS already has pretty good metadata support -- but how many applications use it? The only app vendor I can think of that's at all serious about metadata is Adobe -- and they're only interested in their own platform-independent metadata language.
  139. Why 2006? by cjb110 · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is why the 2006 release date?

    Surely if it doesn't look like it will be finished by then, then move the release date to 2007, or whenever they think it will be done.

    I know I'd rather they took their time, made sure it was a quality product, than hack pieces of to make some arbitary release date.

    --
    ----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
  140. Well... by r3m0t · · Score: 1

    After cancelling WinFS, I hope they at least get time to redo the Search interface again. It was beginning to look old.

    (Remember how many times that thing was changed?)

  141. Avalon for Window 2003? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain to me why in the name of Jesus I would want such a graphically intensive "face" on a server?!?

    How about I reserve some of those resources for, oh, I don't know, service related processes?

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  142. One word: SPOTLIGHT by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so now that they're delaying this new "FS", until 20xx, if consumers want that sort of functionality, they can just switch to MacOS.

    I plan to. In Feb 2005 I'm buying me a nice shiny new Dual Processor G5 with a sexy Cinema display.

    I could go for one of their new all-in-one jobbies, but I do like the G5 as it was when it was released...

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley