Update to the Update

Hi. Wow there has been a lot of, let’s say, interest in the posting Friday. I knew there would be interest, and I knew that the news that we would not ship WinFS as a separate thing would make news, but didn’t expect quite the thread lengths we are seeing! Whew.

There are obviously a lot of questions on people’s minds. So I post again today trying to answer some of them. To those who think I am not a real person but rather a name in front of PR machinery – that’s just not true. I am flesh and blood – with a job, a team, and a passion for what we have been pursuing in WinFS. And even a life outside of Microsoft Building 35 with a wife, kids and other interests. Certainly seems like I might have been too careful in wording last week – was not my intention to offend bloggers everywhere, really.

OK, here are the questions/answers.

---

Is WinFS dead?

Yes and No. Yes, we are not going to ship WinFS as a separate, monolithic software component. But the answer is also No - the vision remains alive and we are moving the technology forward. A lot of the technology really was database stuff – and we’re putting that into SQL and ADO. But some of the technology, especially the end user value points, are not ready, and we’re going to continue to work on that in incubation. Some or all of these technologies may be used by other Microsoft products going forward. ****

Does your plan for WinFS have any impact on Windows Vista?

There is no impact on Windows Vista. We announced back in August 2004 that WinFS would not be in Windows Vista. ****

Will the "Relational Filesystem" ever be in Windows?

Hey – we are very busy finishing Vista, and just aren’t ready to talk about what comes next. The vision for a richer storage in Windows is very much alive. With the new tools for searching and organizing information in Windows Vista, we are taking a good step towards that vision.   ****

Why are parts of WinFS going into SQL Server?

We have a vision around data that guides us we call the "Data Platform Vision". We’ve been talking with customers about this for some time, and we have heard consistent positive feedback. It was clear that the integrated storage and automation features of WinFS will help SQL Server deliver on the "Beyond Relational" and "Continuous Availability and Automation" promises of that vision. We decided to focus resources on delivering these technologies to our customers as part of the Data Platform Vision in the near term. ****

What's the upside to developers?

We believe that including some of the WinFS work in SQL will broaden which developers will benefit from that database, and further we believe the ADO.NET for Orcas innovations will make using a database a lot easier and more productive for developers. Our Data Platform Vision talks about Your Data, Any Place, Any Time. It’s a compelling vision, and we will continue to invest in the desktop versions of SQL (SQL Express and now SQL Everywhere) as well as the Server. ****

What is a ship vehicle? Why does it matter that WinFS is not a "separate ship vehicle"?

A ship vehicle is the method in which we bring a technology to market. This could be a separate product release, a service pack to an existing product, or an integrated technology in a larger product platform. We announced the removal of WinFS from Longhorn two years ago, and talked about WinFS being a separate ship vehicle. But we are no longer are planning to release a separate WinFS delivery vehicle. ****

Was WinFS "killed" because of its design?

No. In fact, the Beta was coming together really well. People have speculated on "redesigns." The original goals of WinFS have never changed, but the technology we are building isn’t easy – so we did take a number of internal design changes and re-writes. And I am not going to apologize for that. Getting the relational engine to behave and perform like the Windows filesystem isn’t a matter of a few lines of code – it has to be done very carefully and architected right. The bars on performance, compatibility, etc. are all super high. ****

Why did Microsoft announce this now after talking about WinFS at TechEd so recently?

When we were at TechEd, we had not made the decision. Sure, it was under discussion, but we did not have all the information we needed and we had not made the call yet. We did share the news as soon as we had the final word. We could have waited longer to disclose the information and made the change in plans less of a contrast, but we chose to notify people as soon as we could. This is why we used the blog and didn’t fire-up the big MS PR machinery – that takes time.

Author: Quentin Clark

Comments

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  Quentin Clark has posted an update to the WinFS update and answers some of the questions that came since...

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  Can you post any details on exactly how it will be split up? That is, which parts are shipping with which products?

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  Thanks for the further explanation! This would have slowed the rumor mill substantially simply by being this forthright.
  
  Here are the issues that I have with what you're saying, though.  First, you say, "Some or all of these technologies may be used by other Microsoft products going forward."  In other words, you're relieving yourselves of further obligation to what people have been excited about for the past three years.  There's no commitment to a relational filesystem anymore; if it happens, groovy, if not, oh well.  If you were as close as you've suggested, then why not simply follow through?  I think you can tell by the feedback that your customers are definitely NOT happy about this decision.  It's great for SQL--and most of us use SQL as well--but it is definitely not the same thing as the WinFS we've been following for the past 3 years.
  
  Furthermore, you state, "There is no impact on Windows Vista. We announced back in August 2004 that WinFS would not be in Windows Vista."  That is not true.  It will not affect Vista's release, but it does affect it long-term--you did not announce that it would never be in Vista.  It is very well-known that the plan was to release WinFS at a later date for Vista.
  
  If the beta was "really coming together," this just doesn't make a lot of sense, unless it is a marketing decision (stepping on SQL's toes) or something like that.  But if that is the case--that you want to avoid eating SQL Server sales--I think Microsoft is missing the point. A pervasive installed base of WinFS at the core of Windows would produce a far greater payoff long-term, adding tremendous value to the Windows platform--spurring upgrades and thwarting competitors.  (And I'm not even sure that would affect SQL that much--it still is necessary for lots of jobs.)

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  PingBack from http://kamallanka.wordpress.com/2006/06/27/the-dream-lives-on/

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  
  "We announced back in August 2004 that WinFS would not be in Windows Vista." : I remember Microsoft also said that this would be an add-on shortly after Vista ships.
  

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  Thank you for the clear talk, the first update (the update before the update to the update) was, I think, a bit vauge.
  
  Now I look forward to learning more about Entities and I suppose LINQ integration. Where can we continue to learn more about the new ADO.NET and SQL Server technologies? Is this blog still going to be updated?
  
  Thank you

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  I've seen Quentin at PDC05, so I can attest to the fact that he is a real person working at Microsoft. Don't know about the wife and kids though ;)
  
  Thanks Quentin for this more down-to-earth blog post with a lot less marketing spin to it.
  
  I agree with Dare that part of the communication problem is the gap between WinFS (well, the vision for it) as it was presented to developers at PDC03 and what WinFS currently seems to stand for.
  
  

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  See, that didn't hurt, did it? :-)
  I think what triggered the gag reflex (and I don't mean jokes) in so many of us (and yes I admit I did use the phrase "creepily disingenuous". Sorry.) was that there was a little too much of the cup-half-full thing about the orginal announcement: that's never likely to go down all that well with experienced developers, because we are after all paid to keep our eyes on the down side of anything we do (if I don't spend a lot of my time thinking "What could go wrong?" you can be sure that Bad Things Will Happen). With lots of competing factors and interests to consider it's understandably difficult to strike just the right tone however, so I'm glad you've taken the trouble to attempt clarification.

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  I was under the impression that Microsoft had said WinFS wouldn't be in Vista when it was launched. Not that it wouldn't be ready for the whole of Vista's lifespan, which seem what you (the author) are saying. I think a lot of people were still counting on it becoming available shortly or later after the launch of Vista.

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  I think this post helps clear up some of the issues that came out of the previous post but I think it muddies the waters as well.
  
  As Ryan says 'if the beta was really coming together' then why has it now evaporated? The 'why' of the piece is missing, for me. Why has the project been disbanded?
  
  I appreciate the update and I appreciate you are a human so I don't want this debate to get offensive as I think it did, at points, on the previous post. Also, I understand that not every project gets to its endpoint and that cannibalising the technology work you had already done is common-sense.... I just think we need to know the 'why' of this failure rather than the outcomes.
  
  Ciaran

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  Hey Quentin that's more like it. Good to see the big machine has a human fact after all...

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2006
  What's in Store : Update to the Update 前...

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Am letzten Freitag wurde die Entscheidung bekannt gegeben, dass wir WinFS nicht als seprates Stück Software...

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  While it's a shame to see WinFs go away it nice to see the open honesty about why it happened and what its future looks like.  Thanks,
  Steve

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  From the WinFS Team blog: Update to the Update.
  Is WinFS dead?Yes and No. Yes, we are not going to...

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Quentin - I certainly appreciate your more candid update.  However, I would like to be just as candid.
  
  I don't believe those within Microsoft who made this decision realize the importance of WinFS to the future of the Windows platform.  Granted, what has been done with Vista is very cool, but as far as what will really drive businesses and users to upgrade to Vista - and feel that it is worth it - I whole heartedly believe that was WinFS.  Not that many outside of the developer community would understand what WinFS is, but the types of applications and scenarios it would have enabled who have attracted people in droves.  It would have certainly attracted developers in droves to write software on your platform, that perhaps would not before.  It was on one thing that would eventually be in Vista that got me TRULY excited.
  
  I urge you and anyone else with the ability to make a reversal on this decision - I urge you in the STRONGEST possible terms - continue your work on WinFS as a relational file system - be more transparent about the development process and the difficulties you've had - seek the assistance of the great development community Microsoft has built - simplify your approach if needed - and make this happen.  I HONESTLY think Vista being perceived as anything other than a simple visual upgrade or XP SP3 depends on it.  I HONESTLY think that a good measure of Microsoft actual and perceived success depends on this.  I HONESTLY think that without WinFS and without the scenarios it enables, those who coyly say they are going to find operating system other alternatives, might actually do so.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  This last weekend Quentin issued a press release via two posts on the WinFS blog announcing that WinFS...

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Good luck to you guys; I hope you can put the voices to rest with what you have in works.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  I think since the "three pillars" have been removed from Vista, we now wonder why we should double or quadruple our RAM and spend $300 per workstation on software.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Klaus,
  
  Best place for for getting more on ADO.NET and LINQ to Entities are:
  
  the ADO.NET team blog:
  http://blogs.msdn.com/dataaccess/
  
  and the MSDN Data site:
  http://msdn.com/data

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. You had WinFS "almost" ready for beta2. Why stop now? Who (outside of MS) said they don't wan't WinFS anymore? Either you were lying when you said how much WinFS was getting ready, or you are not saying what the real reason for dropping it is. No sane customer would want you to stop working on WinFS. Why don't delay it further, if the problem was in the development?

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Quentin's followup still is spin.  "Hey, we're still busy finishing Vista" is a strawman since WinFS was already decoupled from it.
  
  The worst of it is that any information, demos, predictions of a radical way to change the way people work, etc, involving WinFS or any future renaming, will be treated with skepticism.  "Yeah, whatever..." will be the response people will feel.
  
  Try it yourself: go back and read about WinFS in MSDN blogspace... is it even interesting to read anymore?  It's fiction, and innovative thing that Microsoft wants to get developers excited about is fiction too.
  
  Is Monad next?
  
   

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Those of you eagerly awaiting beta 2 of WinFS should
  note that WinFS has been canned. Well thats my...

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Vista is already late, so just take your time with winFS, no need for rush, Its already late, just take your time and make Vista all good and nice. NO need for the rush to meet deadlines.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  PingBack from http://blog.deobald.org/archive/2006/06/27/winfs/

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Customers start to speak-up:
  eWeek
  http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1982039,00.asp
  

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  PingBack from http://winmaclin.wordpress.com/2006/06/27/what-does-the-death-of-winfs-mean/

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Quentin Clark from the WinFS Team comes back at us with some... shall we say clarifications... on last Friday's...

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  I really don't know what the big deal is over this really. Were people expecting WinFS to organize their brains? I am just fine with fast search technology in Vista/Longhorn, I just wish the team could improve performance of the indexer, I have 2.6 GBs of RAM in my system, 3.2 Ghz HT processor and it takes forever to index the entire hard disk.
  
  I also wish the team could focus on fixing the Windows Desktop Search utility, it has issues with Explorer, and boggs down my XP system, it doesn't index when I want it to  either. I also, it has taken up my taskbar real estate, why not make it work like spotlight, click it when I want it approach.
  
  Right now, I am on Vista and from what I am seeing, Search is in the right direction.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Nice to know there are people in Microsoft with a "Human Face" (TM) ;)
  
  "Honesty" (TM) is also nice, as is "Openness" (TM).
  
  When all's said and done, Vista (TM)'s still going to be late, the "exciting new technology" (TM) is going to be "submarined" (TM) where it won't be "visible" (TM) and thus not nearly as "exciting" (TM).
  
  "Seriously" (TM) I believe that Microsoft won't be able to make up from this "blunder" (R) The White House.  There are several database file systems already under development for Linux, some of which use the Internet.
  
  I do get the feeling Microsoft is slowly rolling back "expectations" (TM), in the hopes of surviving the "Next" (TM) few years.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Quentin, can you please explain "incubation"?
  
  From what I understand, it sounds like "not funded", "without a final product" and "postponed indefinitely".
  
  Value points will come with time, given WinFS is shipped. A lot of people were reluctant to switch to computers when they did everything on pen and paper, and Microsoft changed this. It's time to do that again.
  
  Listen to us Windows customers: continue working on WinFS with its original vision and under its original name, and give us the final product whenever it's ready.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Quentin, congratulations. You can PR-spin a PR-spin. The bottle is not half-full. Matter of fact it is not even half-empty anymore.
  
  "A lot of the technology really was database stuff – and we’re putting that into SQL and ADO. But some of the technology, especially the end user value points, are not ready, and we’re going to continue to work on that in incubation."
  
  You have a concept filesystem based on a database. You remove the filesystem, you have a database. You put this into a... database. Nice move. Wasn't WinFS supposed to be on top of SQLServer anyway? You just removed WinFS and that's that. WinFS is dead, period.
  
  "Hey – we are very busy finishing Vista"
  
  Didn't you happen to say that WinFS has no impact on Vista?
  
  "We believe that including some of the WinFS work in SQL will broaden which developers will benefit from that database"
  
  Whereas putting the technology into Windows would reduce the number of developers I assume.
  
  "No. In fact, the Beta was coming together really well."
  
  We can see that, can't we?
  
  Microsoft loses its trust once again. Shame. It most prominently lost the trust of Microsoft advocates by making a fool of them. Go figure. Read the comments.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Weatherman -- Windows Desktop Search offers much of what Spotlight offers, in terms of basic search.  Vista will extend WDS to have Saved Search folders, like Spotlight has.  I'd imagine that the search features will be pretty much equivalent when Vista is released.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  WinFS wearing a red-tee found face down on the surface of a strage planet.
  McCoy to Kirk : "He's Dead, Jim"

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Hi WinFS team,
  I use and experiment on many OSs.Even thou I have been using Linux as my main OS for a long time; becuase of my interests I also have windows and do keep track of it. I have tried winVista, agreed it is fancy looking (but bit slow, but at same time its still beta, so hope speed increases by final release) but currently don't see it adding much value than a better access check mechanism for operations and a updated Graphics driver model which I believe is more XP SP3 material rather than the radical change that WinFS would have been.
  So hope you people keep WinFS going rather than abondening it.
  

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  PingBack from http://rjdohnert.wordpress.com/2006/06/28/update-to-the-update-more-on-winfs/

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  PingBack from http://a-bishop.spb.ru/archives/531

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Can u please update on the status of Project Orange? Is it being ported to work off SQL Server or something?

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  Just to clarify what I meant above when I told keep WinFS going. Agreed the possibilities around various applications of WinFS could be got by having a flexible attribute mechanism at the filesystem level and intelligent indexing and or storing of all datas (content data as well as all meta data).
  At one level it requires the WinFS core services to be available at one end and at the other level significant effort requires to be put in the applications so that they are woven around this core. And the system wide effort is what can give the power of this to all.
  So I hope microsoft moves towards this system wide coharence (implicitly or explicitly achived) in simplifying and powering up things for the end user, which most OS environments will move towards slowly.
  

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  The dream lives on...
  http://kamallanka.wordpress.com/2006/06/27/the-dream-lives-on
  
  Thanks clark but after all the hype that was generated about WINFS and the anticipation that came from it, the thought of not seeing WINFS as a relational file system on Windows Vista anytime soon also saddens the guys down in Kenya :-(. We were all looking forward to this "feature/product/whatever-works-for-you" and as a Microsoft partner, considered it to be one of the main selling points for the new OS and Windows as a platform in general, once it was released. Just when we thought we were finally going to have a great, new innovative technology at our fingertips, its pulled away. Guess its down to more waiting. Sad.Sniff Sniff.

• Anonymous
  June 27, 2006
  This sounds very much like it's suffering for the same reasons as discussed here, in another recent eye-opening post about the overreaching of Microsoft's development teams:
  
  http://blogs.msdn.com/philipsu/archive/2006/06/14/631438.aspx
  
  The development staff is well-meaning, but, as most developers tend to be (admit it; we all are), they often completely underestimate the development effort.
  
  Problem is, when I underestimate the effort for a project to my boss, only a few people are disappointed if we are late and/or have to radically change plans.  When Microsoft does it, especially after trying to be open and share their enthusiasm for a new technology, THOUSANDS of people are disappointed, and careers / startups / plans based upon our dependency of Microsoft products are thrown in disarray.
  
  I think MS is between a rock and a hard place.  We want them to be open, and disclose their plans early so we are ready.  But then they risk disappointing us big time when they can't meet those goals.  Would we feel differently if MS didn't reveal their progress on WinFS?  Of course -- we wouldn't know from it.  But we have to be realistic.  If we want them to be more open and share early info with us, we have to expect to be let down at times.

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  PingBack from https://blogs.msdn.com:443/hans_vb/archive/2006/06/28/649587.aspx

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  WinFS: What’s up?
  Readers who follow Microsoft news and blogs already have probably seen the buzz...

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  Klaus Enevoldsen: You can find out more about ADO.NET Entities at blogs.msdn.com/dataaccess

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  Is anyone surprised by this move?  
  
  Vista being late surprised anyone?
  
  When was the last time Microsoft was "innovated" with tech?
  
  3 years after WinFS was announce, everyone just "believed" that Microsoft would deliver the "golden goose" of filesystem. Now, everyone is up in arms about the death.
  
  Personally, I follow the idea that anything from Microsoft will be believable once its delivered.
  
  Remember, Microsoft is a PR company that sells some softwares. They are good at convincing people that the "future" product will be the saving grace, at least until they pull the plug or miss deadline date.
  
  When Microsoft shows a "concept car" as a future product, just remind yourself.....
   "It will be late and then killed."
  

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  MS, you really dropped the ball by killing WinFS!!

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  just in Time for Samba 4! Whoo Hoo!  Don't have to worry about cross-compatability, NTFS is still NTFS!  And forget pesky CALs, expensive server licenses!  I can connect all of the machines to my Samba DC on AD2003 and everything is gonna be alright!
  
  You know this just about says it all.  I remember life before Linux, yes I had one of those, Dr. Dos, Basic, MS-DOS, Win3.11, man you guys really came out with some stuff then.  And you know even when Apple had already gone to market, you still truly made it sound like that idea about icons and those neat little folders were 'really yours'.  Well guess those days are gone, you can't come out with new products, only new ideas that can't occur.  

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  WinFS a fost anuntat cu surle si trambite ca fiind noul sistem de fisiere din viitorul sistem de operarea...

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  As Microsoft blogger Quentin Clark eloquently put it, "Wow."At the recent TechEd conference in Boston,...

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  Here in Russia we think that WinFS would be more interesting staff than any other Microsoft offers or plan to offer (such as Katmai).
  
  And as we are developers - we are your Customers here.
  
  And we ask: Why do you want to close the solution that is needful for your Customers?
  
  It is not a good idea I think.
  
  Thanks,
  Daniel A. Kornev,
  Microsoft Student Partner.
  
  This posting is provided AS IS and confers no rights.

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  Well, Microsoft the "King of Vaporware" strikes again.
  
  I thought it odd that MS would split WinFS from Vista/Longhorn in 2004, and wondered if it was yet another vaporware. With the beta releases I thought MS might actually build WinFS... but it seems like it was all marketing hype at this point.
  
  After working with computers for 26 years, my experience has been that you just cannot believe software promises until you have the actual product in your hand and can test it yourself.
  
  I fully expext someone will build a "Relational Filesystem", but with this faux-pax, I'm thinking that Microsoft won't be the first one there. (perhaps not even the second) The idea just has too much mind-share at this point not to be built.

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  We apologize for the overpromise and underdeliver on WinFS.  
  
  Those responsible have been sacked.
  
  Those responsible for sacking those that have been sacked, have been sacked.

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  Will SQL server be part of next Microsoft OSes???
  Did I miss the point?
  What's good in ruins of WinFS devoured by SQL Server for the Windows USER. Yeah, there are still some users of Microsoft operating system.
  Do Mr. Frankenstein want us to bootstrap MS SQL Server to our future application, that follow "Data Platform Vision"?
  
  Can MS answer these questions of their humble customer?

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2006
  
  I got a call from Cameron Reilly
  yesterday while he was recording a recent Gday World Podcast.
  It...

• Anonymous
  June 29, 2006
  Let's accuse all, Microsoft of false pretenses!

• Anonymous
  June 29, 2006
  PingBack from http://politech.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/is-winfs-dead-yes-no-yes/

• Anonymous
  June 29, 2006
  This is sad news, but it can't be helped.
  However, please, please, PLEASE extend the file tagging system in Windows Vista. It's an ideal way of organizing files in many dynamic ways, and searching in a file's properties is a massive improvement over other search implementations and a strong selling point for Vista, especially now that the original pillars seem to be removed from it.
  
  However, it's not complete. Why can't I tag or edit the properties of .txt or .gif files, for instance? The implementation in Beta 2 only alows me to easily find, access and organize my JPEGs and DOCs, but not my text files or .PNG's. I can find anything easily, provided I only want to find a subset of the files on my system.
  
  If keywords for files could be stored in the index (or whatever implementation you may be able to think of), and we could tag -any- file, regardless of the file type, that would be a massive leap forward. -Please- extend upon this feature now that WinFS is no more.

• Anonymous
  June 30, 2006
  PingBack from http://craigrandall.net/archives/2006/06/winfs-morphs/

• Anonymous
  June 30, 2006
  I'm sorry for everybody that was developing applications in anticipation of WinFS and is disappointed.
  
  But this seemed one step too far in complexity of the underlying OS. I'm speaking from ignorance of the detail, but having to get a whole SQL database manager up and running, just to get access to the filesystem, seemed to be a recipe for unreliability. Not to mention the prospect of extended boot times while this complex software and its data (the file structure) loads into memory.
  
  I use an application which stores data in some hundreds of files, when frankly, a single database would be much faster and some reports are so slow they are not usable. But it serves a purpose and its disadvantages not crippling - I still use it because it's one of the leaders in its field.
  
  In conclusion, applications that need fast access to large quantities of data can use a database. But I think that it should be the developer's resonsibility to provide one. For simple access to disk files, NTFS will do me fine.

• Anonymous
  July 01, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  July 02, 2006
  想知道关于WinFS开发的一些内幕信息么？想了解WinFS开发的最新情况么？WinFS团队的BLOG是寻找这些问题答案的不二选择。
  以下两篇特别值得推荐：
  Monday, June 26, 2006...

• Anonymous
  July 02, 2006
  I just wanted to say well done to the team for (nearly) delivering probably the most exciting feature for windows in a long time.
  
  I'm really sad it's not going to happen. As a developer who works a lot with Outlook and Exchange based data I have seen the potential and have struggled with the many different stores we have to deal with today.
  
  The problem is that WinFS was not something that the average windows user was going to see much of. Until of course the developers got their hands on it. Believe me, we may not have said much, but we were eagerly anticipating it.
  
  It would have made my life so much easier, and it is hard to even imagine all of the cool applications this could have spawned.
  
  I really think MS have missed a trick to lead rather than follow for change.
  
  Good luck with future projects, I really hope WinFS comes back in the future, and in the meantime please can you publish the PST format for us ....

• Anonymous
  July 02, 2006
  PingBack from http://www.tudy.ro/2006/07/01/microsoft-abandons-winfs-file-system/

• Anonymous
  July 03, 2006
  Okay, Microsft is dead. Now who do we turn to as our data-clutter savior now?

• Anonymous
  July 05, 2006
  "What's the upside to developers?"
  
  How about "What's the upside to comsumers?"
  
  Seriously.

• Anonymous
  July 05, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  July 05, 2006
  You, WinFS people has to get real life.
  
  Port WinFS (in addition to ADO/SQL Server) over to MySQL and/or PosgreSQL. You can prepackage and preinstall both of them on M$Windows. And sell it as shareware for $19.95 with one free trial week. That would be the starting block. Get real. "Not Invented Here" is so [censored] uncool.

• Anonymous
  July 10, 2006
  I guess I'm glad I didn't waste any of my time on WinFS since all the interfaces and APIs will be different when pieces surface in SQL Server and other products.

• Anonymous
  July 13, 2006
  "What is a ship vehicle?"
  
  ship: a vessel that carries passengers or freight
  
  vehicle: a conveyance that transports people or objects
  
  
  
  

• Anonymous
  July 17, 2006
  Have you figured out why Bill Gates keeps on saying "we're only at the beginning of computing" for over a decade? It's because of Cairo and WinFS!
  
  Tell me Bill... when do we ever get to the "middle of computing"? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Oh, I guess he'll say at PDC 2050 "we're only starting to scratch the surface of the power of the PC, because WinFS is still a Holy Grail for me... ughh... for quite some time... and here it is..." (MS then releases WinFS Beta 2 and then repeats the events of 2003-2006)
  
  by the way... bill gates also said way back a few years ago, that by 2 or 3 years, most people would want an buy a tablet pc...

• Anonymous
  July 17, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  July 17, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  July 20, 2006
  PingBack from http://www.sigs.de/blog/js/?p=6

• Anonymous
  August 25, 2006
  
  Editorial note: there will be a certain type of Drunkard's Walk feel to this post, but that is because...

• Anonymous
  September 03, 2006
  PingBack from http://michealaxelsen.com/blog/2006/09/02/links-for-2006-09-02/

• Anonymous
  January 30, 2007
  PingBack from http://www.glok.elsonar.es/2007/01/30/windows-vista-a-fondo-1/

• Anonymous
  March 26, 2007
  Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the

• Anonymous
  May 22, 2007
  PingBack from http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=157

• Anonymous
  September 05, 2007
  Years ago, I toured Europe and talked to about 10.000 people about the wonders of WINFS that was going

• Anonymous
  November 26, 2007
  PingBack from http://feeds.maxblog.eu/item_1012530.html

• Anonymous
  March 19, 2008
  PingBack from http://blog.1.elnuevoparquet.com/22/

• Anonymous
  August 17, 2008
  PingBack from http://onebigweb.com/blog/2008/08/18/the-jinx-on-building-a-unified-personal-content-store-and-why-google-will-break-it-%e2%80%93-part-1/

• Anonymous
  August 25, 2008
  PingBack from http://www.theinquirer.es/2007/01/29/vista_a_fondo_i_introduccion.html

• Anonymous
  May 26, 2009
  PingBack from http://castironbakeware.info/story.php?title=what-s-in-store-update-to-the-update

• Anonymous
  May 29, 2009
  PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=what-s-in-store-update-to-the-update

• Anonymous
  May 31, 2009
  PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=2691

• Anonymous
  June 08, 2009
  PingBack from http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=1495

• Anonymous
  June 08, 2009
  PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=56

• Anonymous
  June 09, 2009
  PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=2744

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2009
  PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=229

• Anonymous
  June 16, 2009
  PingBack from http://fixmycrediteasily.info/story.php?id=10051

• Anonymous
  June 16, 2009
  PingBack from http://lowcostcarinsurances.info/story.php?id=2003