Supposedly UI problems did it in.

[link|http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/06/winfs-is-dead-hiring-stop-another.html#comments|Mini-Microsoft]:

As a former WinFS'er, WinFS's problem wasn't performance - it's problem was in how to expose all the data stored in it in a way the end users (i.e., your grandmother, who probably can't deal with even files and folders and isn't ready to write queries, even natural language ones) could manipulate directly. All the redesigns I saw over the last year were concerning this one issue. Everything else seemed to be coming together except how to expose it to the end user. My perception is once management realized they had all the other problems solved except this one and could ship everything else in SQL Server and benefit a whole bunch of people without waiting for solution no one had found after a huge investment, they decided to merge everything that did work into SQL Server/ADO.Net. And break off the part they were struggling with into a new, much smaller, prototyping team, not called WinFS. So all the parts of WinFS are still alive, just broken up into stuff we know how to do and can ship and stuff we don't know how to do and aren't sure when or if it'll ship.

By Anonymous, at 8:35 PM

MS selling it as a product for years was typical of their FUD/Vaporware. Moving the code into SQL server, etc., doesn't sound like an unreasonable move to me, but killing it because a grandmother can't figure it out seems incredibly stupid. What ever happened to the idea of an OS vendor supplying a basic framework and letting ISVs build on it?[1]

Cheers,
Scott.

OK, so you got this new file system, does all kinda new shit, but you can't come up with a new, oh-so-slick metaphor for it? And that kills the entire project?!? The wingnuts there are more stupid than even I thought.

The answer is too fucking simple. You simply take the new slick underlying file system, and place the old, existing, boring, unexciting, no-sizzle-but-lots-of-steak, everybody-knows-how-to-use-it-except-that-guy's-grandmother file interface, and splice it onto the front end. Then, as time goes on and smarter people than Micros~1 apparently they have start fiddling with it, they can later splice on the new, ohhh-so-k3wl interface onto it (and, since this is Micros~1, kill the old interface that the entire installed base knows how to use).

What the fuck, this is an "object" database, ain't it? And wouldn't you assume that an object database would have an object design? You know, implementing interfaces and all that?

But I guess this is another case of Micros~1 marketing weenies driving the technologists (read: form over substance), where we can't have a new and potentially useful feature without throwing out 60-some years of computing history along with it, now, could we? That wouldn't make sense to the Marketeers, and we know which tail is wagging that dog. So because we can't come up with enough splash to "exploit" this new file system, they'll just kill it ("I'm taking may ball and bat and going home!").

I'm not going to miss Bill Gates in the slightest! Good riddance, you moron.

Post #259,968 by Another Scott 6/25/06 12:10:49 PM Reply	Supposedly UI problems did it in. [link\|http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/06/winfs-is-dead-hiring-stop-another.html#comments\|Mini-Microsoft]: As a former WinFS'er, WinFS's problem wasn't performance - it's problem was in how to expose all the data stored in it in a way the end users (i.e., your grandmother, who probably can't deal with even files and folders and isn't ready to write queries, even natural language ones) could manipulate directly. All the redesigns I saw over the last year were concerning this one issue. Everything else seemed to be coming together except how to expose it to the end user. My perception is once management realized they had all the other problems solved except this one and could ship everything else in SQL Server and benefit a whole bunch of people without waiting for solution no one had found after a huge investment, they decided to merge everything that did work into SQL Server/ADO.Net. And break off the part they were struggling with into a new, much smaller, prototyping team, not called WinFS. So all the parts of WinFS are still alive, just broken up into stuff we know how to do and can ship and stuff we don't know how to do and aren't sure when or if it'll ship. By Anonymous, at 8:35 PM MS selling it as a product for years was typical of their FUD/Vaporware. Moving the code into SQL server, etc., doesn't sound like an unreasonable move to me, but killing it because a grandmother can't figure it out seems incredibly stupid. What ever happened to the idea of an OS vendor supplying a basic framework and letting ISVs build on it?[1] Cheers, Scott. [1] Yeah, the good old days before Microsoft decided ISVs didn't need to exist.
Post #260,935 by jb4 7/6/06 5:40:50 PM Reply	How butt-stoopud are these people? OK, so you got this new file system, does all kinda new shit, but you can't come up with a new, oh-so-slick metaphor for it? And that kills the entire project?!? The wingnuts there are more stupid than even I thought. The answer is too fucking simple. You simply take the new slick underlying file system, and place the old, existing, boring, unexciting, no-sizzle-but-lots-of-steak, everybody-knows-how-to-use-it-except-that-guy's-grandmother file interface, and splice it onto the front end. Then, as time goes on and smarter people than Micros~1 apparently they have start fiddling with it, they can later splice on the new, ohhh-so-k3wl interface onto it (and, since this is Micros~1, kill the old interface that the entire installed base knows how to use). What the fuck, this is an "object" database, ain't it? And wouldn't you assume that an object database would have an object design? You know, implementing interfaces and all that? But I guess this is another case of Micros~1 marketing weenies driving the technologists (read: form over substance), where we can't have a new and potentially useful feature without throwing out 60-some years of computing history along with it, now, could we? That wouldn't make sense to the Marketeers, and we know which tail is wagging that dog. So because we can't come up with enough splash to "exploit" this new file system, they'll just kill it ("I'm taking may ball and bat and going home!"). I'm not going to miss Bill Gates in the slightest! Good riddance, you moron. jb4 "So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't." — Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
Post #260,943 by pwhysall 7/6/06 5:56:45 PM Reply	You're foaming at the mouth. Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator]

Welcome to IWETHEY!