At least PC users have their current file system, which is much better than the one we Mac users have had to use since the original Macintosh (MFS - the Macintosh File System). I hope Apple does deliver with something better in their next release.

MS is stuck with the burden of backward compatibility and that's going to kill the major innovations that could have been possible with Longhorn.

Maybe they will forget Longhorn, keep delivering SPs for XP and go straight to Blackcomb . . .

So, in other words, Microsoft will use its locked in customers and their admittedly best in the world marketing to string people along with vapourware for a few more years, hopefully killing of any rivals in the meantime. Seems to me they did the same thing with Win95. And WinXP. And Windows itself even, back in the 80's. Of course, now there's some competition, such as Linux and MacOS/X. Will their strategy work? Probably. They've proven before that people are more willing to listen to Microsoft marketing than they are to common or even ethical sense.

http://www.byte.com/art/9411/sec9/art11.htm
1994 : Cairo Takes OLE to New Levels
The next version of Windows NT, code-named Cairo and targeted for release sometime in 1995, will be built around the concepts of objects and component software. It will have a native OFS (Object File System) and distributed system support.

http://www.byte.com/art/9511/sec6/art14.htm
1995 : Signs to Cairo
Cairo, Microsoft's object-oriented successor to Windows NT, will begin beta testing in early 1996 for release in 1997. Although Microsoft is not revealing the full details of Cairo yet, there are enough clues within current Microsoft OSes to yield a good idea of how it might work.

http://www.byte.com/art/9611/sec10/art5.htm
1996 : Unearthing Cairo
At the first NT developers conference in 1992, Bill Gates announced that Cairo would arrive in three years and would incorporate object-oriented technologies, especially an object file system. Since then, we've seen Windows NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, and most recently NT 4.0. None is object oriented, none has an object file system, none is Cairo. It seems that Cairo is Microsoft's sly way of promising the world. "Will we see Plug and Play in NT?" "Oh yes, of course, in Cairo." "Will NT ever produce world peace and cheap antigravity?" "You bet -- in Cairo."

The so call Longhorn WinFS directory is just another rencarnation of the Cairo object orientated file system.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1235502,00.asp
September 1, 2003 Eweek 'Longhorn' Rollout Slips
Microsoft Corp. has once again shifted the schedule for the release of "Longhorn," the company's next major version of Windows, leaving some users up in the air about an upgrade path.


Microsoft executives from Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates on down have long described Longhorn as the Redmond, Wash., company's most revolutionary operating system to date. The product was originally expected to ship next year. Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship.

"We do not yet know the time frame for Longhorn, but it will involve a lot of innovative and exciting work," said Gates at a company financial analyst meeting this summer. Since then, other Microsoft officials have neither retracted nor clarified Gates' statement.


Now it's 2006, or is that 2007 ...

See Anti-Competitive Vaporware
http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/commerce/anticompetitive/vaporware/

Quote

Guest wrote:
At least PC users have their current file system, which is much better than the one we Mac users have had to use since the original Macintosh (MFS - the Macintosh File System). I hope Apple does deliver with something better in their next release.

If it weren't so obvious that you have no idea what you were talking about, I'd almost think you just said HFS+ totally sucks when compared to NTFS. Care to elaborate? What's better about NTFS? The slower performance? The lack of actual support for journaling? The lack of on the fly defrag support?

Quote

Guest wrote:
At least PC users have their current file system, which is much better than the one we Mac users have had to use since the original Macintosh (MFS - the Macintosh File System). I hope Apple does deliver with something better in their next release.

You're right. MFS does suck... fortunately Apple ditched it in System 3.

Biff wrote: "If it weren't so obvious that you have no idea what you were talking about, I'd almost think you just said HFS+ totally sucks when compared to NTFS. Care to elaborate? What's better about NTFS? The slower performance? The lack of actual support for journaling? The lack of on the fly defrag support?"

Couldn't have said it better. As someone who uses both windooze and Mac daily I would also like to know how NTFS is better than HFS+ ?? MFS has not been around, for a long, long time.

With HFS+, we've (as Biff said) journaling, meta-data, auto-defrag, true alias, case sensitive (on 10.3 server and 10.4 client).. etc, and soon, spotlight.

But a question, is it similar to what MS calls an "Object File System" ?

In others terms, can we expect that Apple will need to move to another FS (or an improved HFS+++) before we see WinFS ?

Quote

Guest wrote:
But a question, is it similar to what MS calls an "Object File System" ?

In others terms, can we expect that Apple will need to move to another FS (or an improved HFS+++) before we see WinFS ?

I think the fact that Microsoft has had so little success with a object file system, and the fact that other OS vendors and MS itself have managed without one speaks volumes about both the practicality and necessity of an OFS.

In other words, I think it has been shown to be an interested experiment that we are unlikely to ever see widely used. Even the mythical WinFS does not appear to be a OFS, but instead is based on relational database concepts.

As an interesting aside, for years object databases were supposed to obsolete relational databases, which were purported to be dinosaurs. And yet, Oracle, MySQL, SQL Server, and others are alive and well while object databases remain little more than a curiosity. Sometimes a technology or concept sticks around because it just works.

Object File System?

You know, I've never even heard of a clear explanation of what "Object oriented file system" even means. Is it something like how iTunes works? I'd be impressed with a file system that worked like that.

Originally MS wasn't going to make Longhorn backward compatible. It was going to be "bullet proof' and everyone was supposed to be thrilled to buy new software all over again just to be safe from all of the viruses and stuff that comes with the current OS.

Backward compatibility is both a blessing and a curse. It serves as a platform switching barrier but it is also restraining Microsoft from innovating. Somehow Microsoft needs to cut off this "backward compatibility" umbilical cord to avoid the faith of a stagnant baby.

Buying new software for an operating system isn't new, and is always an issue. When OS X was introduced I swore they'd never get my money.

Best money I've ever spent. IF MS can improve their operating system like Apple did, then in time, all will be right in their world too.

Too bad they have to wait five years after Apple came through....

Richie

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Originally MS wasn't going to make Longhorn backward compatible. It was going to be "bullet proof' and everyone was supposed to be thrilled to buy new software all over again just to be safe from all of the viruses and stuff that comes with the current OS.

If there is no backward compatibility, why should we buy Longhorn? Mac OS X, Linux and other Unix variants would be much better. They already have tons of applications developed for them and are proven to be rock-solid.

Ha-ha, Microsoft is now trapped in their own success formula.

Quote

Guest wrote:
With HFS+, we've (as Biff said) journaling, meta-data, auto-defrag, true alias, case sensitive (on 10.3 server and 10.4 client).. etc, and soon, spotlight.

But a question, is it similar to what MS calls an "Object File System" ?

In others terms, can we expect that Apple will need to move to another FS (or an improved HFS+++) before we see WinFS ?

WinFS is not actually a new file system. It is still NTFS. WinFS is created when a relational database is layered over the NTFS file system. The database stores additional info about files allowing relationships to be created among files beyond just the directory struxture of the underlying physical file system (NTFS).

Apparently MS is finding this to be a pain in the ass when it comes to real world implementation. Apple's approach to the issue for Spotlight is much simpler yet is extremely effective.

How is it diffrent than the search system in Panther?

First and foremost, the main purpose of WinFS is not to make searching easier, although search is certainly enhanced with WinFS. Microsoft released its Indexing Service for NT 4.0 in an Option Pack back in 1997, and it has been enhanced with 2000 and XP. It allows for searching on file contents, metatdata, etc.; the only bad thing is it has an awful user interface. Essentially, the new MSN Desktop Search is a front-end to the existing Indexing Service.

There's a lot of misconceptions out there about what WinFS is and isn't. Never did Microsoft ever say that it or Longhorn would break compatibility--how do you think they could get corporations to adopt it if this were true?

Microsoft WILL deliver fast file searching in Longhorn although without the use of WinFS. It will be most likely based on the MSN Desktop Search beta that is currently available as part of the MSN toolbar beta. It's (in my opinion) better than Google Desktop search and even supports search as you type. Try it out @ beta.toolbar.msn.com.

you can also watch a video with the developers showing it off over at channel9.msdn.com (mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/0412/23725/MSN/MSN_Desktop_Team1_revised__56K_110K_300K.wmv)