Longhorn has been sold on the strengths of three major components - Indigo, which is the new, improved .Net; Avalon, a new 3D user interface and display system; and WinFS. This is nominally a filing system but is really a relational database that speaks XML. Of the three components, it is the most exciting and the only one that promises to significantly improve day-to-day working: Microsoft says that by treating files as interrelated objects about which much is known, finding information and classifying it into useful collections will be easier. Searches will be much faster, and we'll be able to handle files much more naturally.
Unfortunately, all that has changed. While Avalon and Indigo are still on the menu for Longhorn - indeed, they'll be brought out so you can run them on XP and Windows Server -- WinFS has been sent back to the kitchen for further cooking. It will only be available in beta when Longhorn finally ships -- that's if 'Longhorn' is anything more than another complicated service pack for XP by then.
The reason behind this deconstruction of Longhorn is simple. Microsoft has to persuade developers - the only people besides patent lawyers that it deeply, truly loves - that all these disparate components should be part of their game plan. With all these innovations come new APIs, Microsoft's true warp drives of revenue. For developers to write software that uses the APIs - and thus the operating system - they must learn the ropes, download new development tools and spend a lot of time and money.
It's hard to justify that if there's no way to use what you've learned, or if you can't do much more afterwards than you could before. But Microsoft needs people to lock themselves into future generations of Windows: it has to have armies of programmers and a nice cushion of products ready when Longhorn ships, otherwise who'll buy it?
With Avalon and Indigo, the official line is that while they will run with the current crop of OS, they'll be a lot better on Longhorn. So please start working on them now, and when the bright new dawn comes, you'll be there and your competitors will be nowhere. It's not much of a story, but it's the best that Microsoft has got.
With WinFS, the story is murkier. Microsoft has long been confused about what it is, even from the time it was named. It's a filing system! No, it's a relational database with rich XML metadata capabilities! No, hold on, that's SQL Server 2005, aka Yukon. No, don't confuse them, says Microsoft, even though they have stuff in common. Yukon is a real database, not a mere file store. So why is Yukon going to be used as the filing system for future versions of Exchange, and not WinFS? What, exactly, is the difference between them? If I'm developing a product that could do with a nice database engine, should I code for WinFS or SQL Server?
Talkback
There already is a modern, 64-bit, rock-stable, virus-free, operating system available today that has a majority of the features that are currently still vaporware in Longhorn. It's called OS X. Go here for info -http://www.apple.com/macosx/.
For insights as to where OS X will be a full year before Longhorn is even considered being launched by Microsoftm go here - http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger
So microsoft is trying to intorduce a DATABASE
based File system...
No doubt it will be proprietary, and closed, so they
will remain in full control of and practically OWN
YOUR DATA!
Since reverse engineering databases is a crime,
Microsoft will be able to do this with NO
competition. (sounds like deja vu to me)
I guarantee, this is designed to specifically
target and lock out Linux from the next phase of Wintel.
They are using excuses of poor original design
to ram more srap down our throats, and LOCK
everyone further into their architecture.
Anyone who embraces WINFS or any new
proprietary file-system from THEM is a moron!
and is doing nothing more than perpetuating
Microsoft's monopoly!
gee Microsoft, where do i sign up???
When I first read about WinFS in the early 90's, and to be released around 1995, it sounded really exciting. Now it is a decade late and being delayed yet again. Is this product the ultimate "vaporware"?
As for the "enhancements" to the GUI, XP made Windows look like a toy computer, sort of an electronic Lego style. Modern GUI's already tend to run like sloth's on valium, why would I want to cripple my machine yet further for some more eye candy? (And I am not singling out Windows here, OS X, KDE, Gnome and many others are equally guilty here.)
I just want a nice simple, fast environment that doesn't labour under roll out menus and pretty effects. The are nice for a quick "wow" factor, but tend to just get in the way of productivity after a short while.
The PC should be there to aid me, ready at my beck and call to do what I need, I shouldn't be sitting twiddling my thumbs waiting for it to catch up because it is doing some fancy visuals; and I am not talking about the visuals overpowering the processing capabilities of the machine here (although they sometimes do), but the fact they themselves take time to complete. By the time a visual effect has finished, I could have selected the option I wanted and be doing my next task if it had just drawn the menu directly (heck, I still use keyboard shortcuts most of the time).
What I would really like is a very fast, compact, basic GUI which doesn't get in my way, with say "plug-in" fancy modules for people who want the gee-whiz effects.