I agree, it's really a shame. If they could have done it right, it would have
been a great development. Unfortunetly, now this makes Vista reak a lot like
Windows 98SE. Instead of charging for a "new" product, how about releasing a
new service pack for XP with all of the proposed Vista changes?
I too was a little put off by the "announcement". Instead of just saying
what was happening, they tried to make it sound like they had made a major
breakthrough. WinFS was gorwing by such great leaps and bounds that it just
couldn't be released on its own and had to be upsold to a richer environment.
Everyone saw through that. Something has happened and it just isn't working
out. Just say that. I find it interesting though that it's moving to SQL
Server, with a new version of Office, a new SharePoint with all of the CMS
functionality built right into it. Looks like they're moving us towards
centralized document management, which makes a lot of sense for corporations,
but not so much for home users. Because of TechNet Plus, I could install
Windows 2003, SQL Server ans SharePoint at home to store my documents, but
why would I really want to?
"Eberhard Schefold" wrote:
> roman modic wrote:
>
> > http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006...ed-internally/
> > | Quote: |  | |
| > > Shishir Mehrotra of the WinFS team wrote me and other bloggers who are talking about this internally and said my theory is wrong and
> > that WinFS hasn't died at all, but is actually being rolled into SQL Server and a new project that's under development.
> > | |
| | |
>
> This is /so/ silly. Having the functionality built into the operating
> system, or requiring the user to buy SQL Server -- isn't that a slight
> change of paradigm? WinFS, as it was planned, could have been such a
> catalyst for /great/ interoperative applications. When it's limited to
> SQL Server users, the market and the possibilities are so much more limited.
>
> WinFS, as a concept, is dead. I really wished they had at least the
> decency to say so. This (quote) "super-excited" announcement of Quentin
> Clark's only adds insult to injury.
>