Microsoft’s plans for “Longhorn,” the next version of Windows, include a new graphics subsystem, a new file system and a new security system. But, so far, users aren’t nearly as excited about the features as Microsoft is, eWeek says. In the meantime, The Register reports that Microsoft sidelines Longhorn database caper: Microsoft has scaled back its ‘Big Bang’, and its Future Storage initiative will build on, rather than supersede the NTFS file system, when the next version of Windows appears in 2005.
A ‘Longhorn’ View for Microsoft
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think people get more excited about OSS / Linux feature-addons because of how it’s all handled. MS reveals all these new features that ring of marketting more than enhancement. OSS releases a steady stream of cool little bobs and bits, and there’s more of a feeling that you can pick ‘n’ pan such features, as opposed to Windows or Mac, where there’s a mothership from which all things come. Not that I’m arguing against commercial software, just arguing that it’s harder to get excited about it, due to its release style.
For that matter, I think Apple does a great job of using its resources to build a superior product, whereas people are just lately starting to realize Microsoft’s ongoing tendancy to do whatever sells, not what’s necesarily better. I like Windows fine, but even with their recent awakening to the fact that “if you build it, they will come,” I don’t think they’re concious enough of the fact that people are soon going to notice what’s wrong with this picture, what with all the platform independance going on.
Now I’m kinda rambling off track…
WinFS postponed once again. What are they waiting for? Reiser5?
..that could easily be a service pack or an add-on or something. For example, Windows Me.
From what I see, Microsoft really isn’t planning to move very far in the next two years. No new file-system, locked down PCs and some crappy 3D effects that belong on a mac.
But then again, I’m hardly suprised.
Hmmm… Who didn’t see that coming. Let’s face it, being the only person in your workgroup/network without the ability to think in file and folder terms anymore really sucks. Hotly follow that with namespace issues, files you can’t use unless you remember what the thing actually says/when you saved it/etc. and pretty soon you get real problems. Not to mention trying to script file actions… Data searching is sometimes a reasonable method of browsing, but ultimately, very few users want to Google their hard disks to find files they created two years ago, with content they don’t remember.
How do you solve that, well, you end up storing them conventionally, using that as your main file structure and access method and just using meta-data searching to beef up your existing search facilities.
Not only that, but now you are running a DB server at all times to accomodate this, or starting and stopping it constantly. Not the greatest thing, especially for large numbers of user files and large quantities of data.
Let’s not mention the fun of trying to mix relational and hierachical file structures in the hybrid model, though.
In short, it’s just a bad idea.
Maybe ReiserFS 4’s meta-data searching will be nicer when finished; who knows… But WinFS was always going to be a road to nowhere.
I was kind of excited to see how winfs would pan out. A lot of people were making outlandish claims about how Unices would playing catch up to winfs. It looks like that went out the window. NTFS part 2 will be fine I’m sure, but nothing mind blowing.
I use ReiserFS right now and I really like it. I’m hoping that continued work on it can really leave MS catching up to *nix.
Microsoft is not a company that invents anything other than technology designed to cripple the user’s ability to control their own computer.
So Microsoft is having troubles with WinFS. And Microsoft management simply tells the troops to wait a year or two and then Microsoft will copy someone else’s technology.
Another year, another OS, the same old web of stolen technologies with Microsoft 1984ware added on top.
Reiserfs 4 is suppposed to be really something.
Coming this summer.
Nice try. NTFS is already at version 3.1. Windows Server 2003 and XP both run NTFS 3.1. Most people commonly call the most recently versions 4.0 and 5.0, to correspond with the Windows version number (reference:http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/ver-c.html). NTFS 5.0 is the most common term I’ve heard for Windows 2000 and above implementations of NTFS.
If you want more on this, you can check these two URLs:
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=25515
http://is-it-true.org/nt/nt2000/atips/atips104.shtml
Each version of NTFS also has also been compatibile with older NTFS volumes – they’ve all played pretty nicely with each other. It’s a mature, journalled file system that, I’d say, easily competes with ResierFS and ext3. One thing is for sure, NTFS is certainly proven and stable.
Of course, give me NetWare file sytem anyday – with the incredible extended permissions that beat Unix and NT’s permissions anyday.
Windows 2000 REQUIRES NTFS “version 5.0,” and it will automatically upgrade any volumes using an older version of NTFS. This applies to MOUNTED volumes as well, so be careful if you have both types of NTFS in your network.
One note though – NT, when upgraded to at least SP4, can read/write to NTFS 5.0, so if you apply patches and service packs like a good admin should, it generally isn’t an issue.
NTFS isn’t a journalling file system… do a search on google, to find out what a journalling file system is…
Uh…Nautilus, I don’t know where you get your information, but YES, IT IS. It has been for some time, actually.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/…
we all should wait until we see what ships before comparing it to anything on the market. Microsoft has a long history of over-promising and under-delivering.
I seem to recall making this comment earlier today on this very topic (with regards to Longhorn’s 3D graphics).
So the president of “Kernel Software Inc.” and some random network admin in VA aren’t impressed by graphical improvements in Longhorn? Who cares?
Nautilus:
Actually, if you do any reasearch at all, you will find that NTFS has been a journaling FS for quite some time now.
I guess anything goes when it comes to bashing MS, eh?
what exactly does NTFS journal? data? metadata? both? you say NTFS has been a journalling file system for “quite some time now” how well do you trust the first incarnation of NTFS? i’d absolutely have no qualms about unplugging a reiserfs during disk operations (it’s happened a few times with cats unplugging the pc >_<).
The NTFS change journal catalogs information about adds, deletes, and file mods for each volume. It also tracks directory creation, modification, and deletion.
I have no fear that my NTFS volumes will survive power outage – it’s happened before. As for trusting the “first incarnation of NTFS,” isn’t that irrelavent? You’re comapring it to TODAY’S reiser. Today’s NTFS is more robust and surely more deployed that reiser. Now, I’m not saying it’s better, but I’m saying it’s proven. reiser is not even the foremost filesystem on Linux, and that’s really the only place it has noteable marketshare.
It’s hard to argue against NTFS anymore. Anyone who does generally has an ax to grind with MS.
The eWeek article seems to be another Microsoft bashing to me. They highlight network administrators complaining about how graphic enhancements should be for the “folks at home,” but didn’t the early preview say that there would be three different levels of graphics. Microsoft seems to be taking a hint from the open-source crowd and leaving things as a choice. As long as users have a choice to disable 3d graphics, I see no reason to get mad at Microsoft for offering them. Who knows, maybe it could be more productive.
I’m also disappointed with the closed-mindedness of comments like “I will never trust security from Microsoft as long as it comes from Microsoft.” Microsoft improved a lot of stability issues with Windows 2000/XP, whose to say that given the proper focus they could not accomplish security? Because Microsoft is capitalist and greedy and evil doesn’t mean they can’t produce a decent enough product if the market demands it.
As for Yukon and WinFS, we’ll see what happens. Certainly products change over time and I’m not taking Paul Thurrot’s interpretation as gospel that Microsoft has completely shifted it’s plan for file storage.
Jeez, Microsoft really scares me now. They seem to be pushing hard to get their NGSB/Palladium/Nexus out as soon as they can into the core of the OS.
They now want to “0wnz” my PC. I’m not upgrading from Win2k unless they move that crap outta the OS(which does seem to be likely given their enthusiasm for Palladium). Maybe this is a good time to shift for good to the good side aka FreeBSD/NetBSD/Linux
Microsoft should just upgrade all their XP customers to Longhorn when it is available through their auto update system. Surely MS has an auto update system robust enough to handle such an upgrade.
Luke:
People like you are truely pathetic. You bring about nothing but FUD and no data to back it up…. good article below, you should read it.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58822,00.html
Many comments on here are typical of the Linux FUD. NTFS is a journaling file system. Ive seen NT servers accidentally unplugged during heavy disk use and they have always come back up with no disk corruption whatsoever. The softupdates on FreeBSD also work very well and ive never had data corruption on this OS either.
Its typical hype by the “Linux is gods gift to operating systems” crowd.