What is up with Vista's file system?

What is up with Vista's file system?



I thought Vista was slated to have a new whiz-bang file system that was
going to replace NTFS. But then I read that the new file system would not be
part of Vista at its début. But that it may yet materialize with a
Service-Pack or Second Edition or something like that. It's not clear to me
what the status of Windows Vista disk sub-system is.



Right now, or as it will be released, is Vista using the NTFS or not?



Who can shed some light on the current state and future plans for Vista's
file system?



And let me add, that Google's new online mail, employs a different mechanism
for handling files. Apparently all of the files stay in the same big
"folder", so to speak, and then to make each file distinct, one simply
assigns "tags" to the individual files. These tags greatly assist the
searching and confinement of those files. - I like the way the Google system
works (but I also suspect that less sophisticated users will have difficulty
in understanding how to use those tags). After I had been using the Google
system for a while, I thought it would be the wave of the future. I was
hopfull that Microsoft would employ a similar type scheme in Vista. For me,
it solves one very difficult issue - mainly, how to have the same file in
multiple locations at once without actually storing the file multiple times.
Oh sure, as it is on can place a shortcut where the file is needed, but the
idea of just "taging" each file with the appropriate designations really
seemed to work well.



As an example of how tags are useful, consider the following example:



If I want to save all "Mary" pictures, I can create a folder called "Mary"
and then put all of her pictures in that folder. Likewise, I can put all
"Bill" pictures in a folder called "Bill". But what if I have a picture that
has both Mary and Bill in it? Which folder should it go into? With tags, one
simply adds to that file the three tags; "Pictures" and "Mary" and "Bill".

To me, this serves a very useful purpose and that is why I am so excited
about seeing an implication of this kind of file system on a home PC. In a
way I suspect, it turns the file system into one big database. Think about
the possibilities of, say, hiding files? Now, individual tags can be
assigned access attributes. - Files marked with the "System" tag would
automatically be hidden unless the "System" tag was specifically included in
the search string. The possibilities of exercising ingenuity abound.



Thoughts? Comments? Anyone?



Okay, so while I'm on a roll, let me rant just a bit more:



I will share a few thoughts I have regarding the *philosophy* of an
operating system, and reveal the way I feel it should be done. As it stands,
a dichotomy existes in the way an operating system must work for all users -
the advanced as well as the novice. Advanced users want the operating
system to be more "business-like" with micro-control over every possible
aspect of the computer's operation. While many people, if indeed not most,
want the computer to be "easy to use" and they don't care about the details
so much as just getting the job done. So too is the computer's "help
system" - most users just want minimal context-sensitive "nudges" to keep
them on track, while techies want their help to contain every minute detail.
So, what to do? Who to cater to? You see? That is the dichotomy.



My thoughts are that you can cater to both groups by simply giving the
system "modes" so that each individual User can select the mode which suits
him best. My first thought was that maybe three modes would suffice. But
then I got to thinking; Why not make it linear - allowing the user to
smoothly adjust the complexity level? - One can easily envision a futuristic
system that employs cyber-intelligence and can slowly "learn" the
proficiently level of its operator. Of course many will just want to run it
wide open - options are always a good thing.

But now I am getting off the subject, so I will just leave it at that.



Thanks all,



- Stan Shankman

You're probably referring to WinFS. WinFS was never going to replace NTFS.
WinFS isn't a file system in the traditional sense, as it doesn't define a
low level disk format or other things of that sort. It's better to think of
it as a database in which you can store structured data, traditional files,
and relationships between these items, and share them between programs or
browse and manage them via the Explorer Shell. Note that it's only meant for
user data and files, not for stuff like the contents of c:\Windows, which
would still be stored and managed directly in the file system. Files stored
in WinFS are managed by WinFS but their data streams are stored in NTFS.
Non-WinFS programs can access those files indirectly as if it were accessing
normal files but cannot do so with pure WinFS database items.

Yes, WinFS has been delayed. It has been set to ship for Vista and possibly
XP sometime after Vista ships. There is currently a Beta 1 available for XP
and word of Beta 2 coming next month. No word on how it will integrate into
the Vista shell if/when it does ship.

There is some tagging and metadata organizing capability in Vista
independent of WinFS, but as we are discussing in another thread here, it
seems to be limited to what metadata individual file formats and/or their
metadata handlers (IFilters) support.

"Stan Shankman" <stantheman@visi.com> wrote in message
news:uQ8io1igGHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> What is up with Vista's file system?
>
>
>
> I thought Vista was slated to have a new whiz-bang file system that was
> going to replace NTFS. But then I read that the new file system would not
> be
> part of Vista at its début. But that it may yet materialize with a
> Service-Pack or Second Edition or something like that. It's not clear to
> me
> what the status of Windows Vista disk sub-system is.
>
>
>
> Right now, or as it will be released, is Vista using the NTFS or not?
>
>
>
> Who can shed some light on the current state and future plans for Vista's
> file system?
>
>
>
> And let me add, that Google's new online mail, employs a different
> mechanism
> for handling files. Apparently all of the files stay in the same big
> "folder", so to speak, and then to make each file distinct, one simply
> assigns "tags" to the individual files. These tags greatly assist the
> searching and confinement of those files. - I like the way the Google
> system
> works (but I also suspect that less sophisticated users will have
> difficulty
> in understanding how to use those tags). After I had been using the Google
> system for a while, I thought it would be the wave of the future. I was
> hopfull that Microsoft would employ a similar type scheme in Vista. For
> me,
> it solves one very difficult issue - mainly, how to have the same file in
> multiple locations at once without actually storing the file multiple
> times.
> Oh sure, as it is on can place a shortcut where the file is needed, but
> the
> idea of just "taging" each file with the appropriate designations really
> seemed to work well.
>
>
>
> As an example of how tags are useful, consider the following example:
>
>
>
> If I want to save all "Mary" pictures, I can create a folder called "Mary"
> and then put all of her pictures in that folder. Likewise, I can put all
> "Bill" pictures in a folder called "Bill". But what if I have a picture
> that
> has both Mary and Bill in it? Which folder should it go into? With tags,
> one
> simply adds to that file the three tags; "Pictures" and "Mary" and "Bill".
>
> To me, this serves a very useful purpose and that is why I am so excited
> about seeing an implication of this kind of file system on a home PC. In a
> way I suspect, it turns the file system into one big database. Think about
> the possibilities of, say, hiding files? Now, individual tags can be
> assigned access attributes. - Files marked with the "System" tag would
> automatically be hidden unless the "System" tag was specifically included
> in
> the search string. The possibilities of exercising ingenuity abound.
>
>
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Anyone?
>
>
>
> Okay, so while I'm on a roll, let me rant just a bit more:
>
>
>
> I will share a few thoughts I have regarding the *philosophy* of an
> operating system, and reveal the way I feel it should be done. As it
> stands,
> a dichotomy existes in the way an operating system must work for all
> users -
> the advanced as well as the novice. Advanced users want the operating
> system to be more "business-like" with micro-control over every possible
> aspect of the computer's operation. While many people, if indeed not most,
> want the computer to be "easy to use" and they don't care about the
> details
> so much as just getting the job done. So too is the computer's "help
> system" - most users just want minimal context-sensitive "nudges" to keep
> them on track, while techies want their help to contain every minute
> detail.
> So, what to do? Who to cater to? You see? That is the dichotomy.
>
>
>
> My thoughts are that you can cater to both groups by simply giving the
> system "modes" so that each individual User can select the mode which
> suits
> him best. My first thought was that maybe three modes would suffice. But
> then I got to thinking; Why not make it linear - allowing the user to
> smoothly adjust the complexity level? - One can easily envision a
> futuristic
> system that employs cyber-intelligence and can slowly "learn" the
> proficiently level of its operator. Of course many will just want to run
> it
> wide open - options are always a good thing.
>
> But now I am getting off the subject, so I will just leave it at that.
>
>
>
> Thanks all,
>
>
>
> - Stan Shankman
>
>

"WinFS isn't a file system"??? What does the 'FS' in WinFS stand for?

"Chris Altmann" wrote:

> You're probably referring to WinFS. WinFS was never going to replace NTFS.
> WinFS isn't a file system in the traditional sense, as it doesn't define a
> low level disk format or other things of that sort. It's better to think of
> it as a database in which you can store structured data, traditional files,
> and relationships between these items, and share them between programs or
> browse and manage them via the Explorer Shell. Note that it's only meant for
> user data and files, not for stuff like the contents of c:\Windows, which
> would still be stored and managed directly in the file system. Files stored
> in WinFS are managed by WinFS but their data streams are stored in NTFS.
> Non-WinFS programs can access those files indirectly as if it were accessing
> normal files but cannot do so with pure WinFS database items.
>
> Yes, WinFS has been delayed. It has been set to ship for Vista and possibly
> XP sometime after Vista ships. There is currently a Beta 1 available for XP
> and word of Beta 2 coming next month. No word on how it will integrate into
> the Vista shell if/when it does ship.
>
> There is some tagging and metadata organizing capability in Vista
> independent of WinFS, but as we are discussing in another thread here, it
> seems to be limited to what metadata individual file formats and/or their
> metadata handlers (IFilters) support.
>
> "Stan Shankman" <stantheman@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:uQ8io1igGHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > What is up with Vista's file system?
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought Vista was slated to have a new whiz-bang file system that was
> > going to replace NTFS. But then I read that the new file system would not
> > be
> > part of Vista at its début. But that it may yet materialize with a
> > Service-Pack or Second Edition or something like that. It's not clear to
> > me
> > what the status of Windows Vista disk sub-system is.
> >
> >
> >
> > Right now, or as it will be released, is Vista using the NTFS or not?
> >
> >
> >
> > Who can shed some light on the current state and future plans for Vista's
> > file system?
> >
> >
> >
> > And let me add, that Google's new online mail, employs a different
> > mechanism
> > for handling files. Apparently all of the files stay in the same big
> > "folder", so to speak, and then to make each file distinct, one simply
> > assigns "tags" to the individual files. These tags greatly assist the
> > searching and confinement of those files. - I like the way the Google
> > system
> > works (but I also suspect that less sophisticated users will have
> > difficulty
> > in understanding how to use those tags). After I had been using the Google
> > system for a while, I thought it would be the wave of the future. I was
> > hopfull that Microsoft would employ a similar type scheme in Vista. For
> > me,
> > it solves one very difficult issue - mainly, how to have the same file in
> > multiple locations at once without actually storing the file multiple
> > times.
> > Oh sure, as it is on can place a shortcut where the file is needed, but
> > the
> > idea of just "taging" each file with the appropriate designations really
> > seemed to work well.
> >
> >
> >
> > As an example of how tags are useful, consider the following example:
> >
> >
> >
> > If I want to save all "Mary" pictures, I can create a folder called "Mary"
> > and then put all of her pictures in that folder. Likewise, I can put all
> > "Bill" pictures in a folder called "Bill". But what if I have a picture
> > that
> > has both Mary and Bill in it? Which folder should it go into? With tags,
> > one
> > simply adds to that file the three tags; "Pictures" and "Mary" and "Bill".
> >
> > To me, this serves a very useful purpose and that is why I am so excited
> > about seeing an implication of this kind of file system on a home PC. In a
> > way I suspect, it turns the file system into one big database. Think about
> > the possibilities of, say, hiding files? Now, individual tags can be
> > assigned access attributes. - Files marked with the "System" tag would
> > automatically be hidden unless the "System" tag was specifically included
> > in
> > the search string. The possibilities of exercising ingenuity abound.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts? Comments? Anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay, so while I'm on a roll, let me rant just a bit more:
> >
> >
> >
> > I will share a few thoughts I have regarding the *philosophy* of an
> > operating system, and reveal the way I feel it should be done. As it
> > stands,
> > a dichotomy existes in the way an operating system must work for all
> > users -
> > the advanced as well as the novice. Advanced users want the operating
> > system to be more "business-like" with micro-control over every possible
> > aspect of the computer's operation. While many people, if indeed not most,
> > want the computer to be "easy to use" and they don't care about the
> > details
> > so much as just getting the job done. So too is the computer's "help
> > system" - most users just want minimal context-sensitive "nudges" to keep
> > them on track, while techies want their help to contain every minute
> > detail.
> > So, what to do? Who to cater to? You see? That is the dichotomy.
> >
> >
> >
> > My thoughts are that you can cater to both groups by simply giving the
> > system "modes" so that each individual User can select the mode which
> > suits
> > him best. My first thought was that maybe three modes would suffice. But
> > then I got to thinking; Why not make it linear - allowing the user to
> > smoothly adjust the complexity level? - One can easily envision a
> > futuristic
> > system that employs cyber-intelligence and can slowly "learn" the
> > proficiently level of its operator. Of course many will just want to run
> > it
> > wide open - options are always a good thing.
> >
> > But now I am getting off the subject, so I will just leave it at that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> >
> >
> > - Stan Shankman
> >
> >
>
>
>

"WinFS isn't a file system"??? What does the 'FS' in WinFS stand for?

"Chris Altmann" wrote:

> You're probably referring to WinFS. WinFS was never going to replace NTFS.
> WinFS isn't a file system in the traditional sense, as it doesn't define a
> low level disk format or other things of that sort. It's better to think of
> it as a database in which you can store structured data, traditional files,
> and relationships between these items, and share them between programs or
> browse and manage them via the Explorer Shell. Note that it's only meant for
> user data and files, not for stuff like the contents of c:\Windows, which
> would still be stored and managed directly in the file system. Files stored
> in WinFS are managed by WinFS but their data streams are stored in NTFS.
> Non-WinFS programs can access those files indirectly as if it were accessing
> normal files but cannot do so with pure WinFS database items.
>
> Yes, WinFS has been delayed. It has been set to ship for Vista and possibly
> XP sometime after Vista ships. There is currently a Beta 1 available for XP
> and word of Beta 2 coming next month. No word on how it will integrate into
> the Vista shell if/when it does ship.
>
> There is some tagging and metadata organizing capability in Vista
> independent of WinFS, but as we are discussing in another thread here, it
> seems to be limited to what metadata individual file formats and/or their
> metadata handlers (IFilters) support.
>
> "Stan Shankman" <stantheman@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:uQ8io1igGHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > What is up with Vista's file system?
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought Vista was slated to have a new whiz-bang file system that was
> > going to replace NTFS. But then I read that the new file system would not
> > be
> > part of Vista at its début. But that it may yet materialize with a
> > Service-Pack or Second Edition or something like that. It's not clear to
> > me
> > what the status of Windows Vista disk sub-system is.
> >
> >
> >
> > Right now, or as it will be released, is Vista using the NTFS or not?
> >
> >
> >
> > Who can shed some light on the current state and future plans for Vista's
> > file system?
> >
> >
> >
> > And let me add, that Google's new online mail, employs a different
> > mechanism
> > for handling files. Apparently all of the files stay in the same big
> > "folder", so to speak, and then to make each file distinct, one simply
> > assigns "tags" to the individual files. These tags greatly assist the
> > searching and confinement of those files. - I like the way the Google
> > system
> > works (but I also suspect that less sophisticated users will have
> > difficulty
> > in understanding how to use those tags). After I had been using the Google
> > system for a while, I thought it would be the wave of the future. I was
> > hopfull that Microsoft would employ a similar type scheme in Vista. For
> > me,
> > it solves one very difficult issue - mainly, how to have the same file in
> > multiple locations at once without actually storing the file multiple
> > times.
> > Oh sure, as it is on can place a shortcut where the file is needed, but
> > the
> > idea of just "taging" each file with the appropriate designations really
> > seemed to work well.
> >
> >
> >
> > As an example of how tags are useful, consider the following example:
> >
> >
> >
> > If I want to save all "Mary" pictures, I can create a folder called "Mary"
> > and then put all of her pictures in that folder. Likewise, I can put all
> > "Bill" pictures in a folder called "Bill". But what if I have a picture
> > that
> > has both Mary and Bill in it? Which folder should it go into? With tags,
> > one
> > simply adds to that file the three tags; "Pictures" and "Mary" and "Bill".
> >
> > To me, this serves a very useful purpose and that is why I am so excited
> > about seeing an implication of this kind of file system on a home PC. In a
> > way I suspect, it turns the file system into one big database. Think about
> > the possibilities of, say, hiding files? Now, individual tags can be
> > assigned access attributes. - Files marked with the "System" tag would
> > automatically be hidden unless the "System" tag was specifically included
> > in
> > the search string. The possibilities of exercising ingenuity abound.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts? Comments? Anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay, so while I'm on a roll, let me rant just a bit more:
> >
> >
> >
> > I will share a few thoughts I have regarding the *philosophy* of an
> > operating system, and reveal the way I feel it should be done. As it
> > stands,
> > a dichotomy existes in the way an operating system must work for all
> > users -
> > the advanced as well as the novice. Advanced users want the operating
> > system to be more "business-like" with micro-control over every possible
> > aspect of the computer's operation. While many people, if indeed not most,
> > want the computer to be "easy to use" and they don't care about the
> > details
> > so much as just getting the job done. So too is the computer's "help
> > system" - most users just want minimal context-sensitive "nudges" to keep
> > them on track, while techies want their help to contain every minute
> > detail.
> > So, what to do? Who to cater to? You see? That is the dichotomy.
> >
> >
> >
> > My thoughts are that you can cater to both groups by simply giving the
> > system "modes" so that each individual User can select the mode which
> > suits
> > him best. My first thought was that maybe three modes would suffice. But
> > then I got to thinking; Why not make it linear - allowing the user to
> > smoothly adjust the complexity level? - One can easily envision a
> > futuristic
> > system that employs cyber-intelligence and can slowly "learn" the
> > proficiently level of its operator. Of course many will just want to run
> > it
> > wide open - options are always a good thing.
> >
> > But now I am getting off the subject, so I will just leave it at that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> >
> >
> > - Stan Shankman
> >
> >
>
>
>

FS stands for File System, even though it's kind of a virtual file system.
Maybe they just couldn't come up with a good name/acronym for "SQL Virtual
File System" or whatever.

"Scottg" <Scottg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
newsDEB28B5-7C20-44DA-9208-94BE5D722C57@microsoft.com...
> "WinFS isn't a file system"??? What does the 'FS' in WinFS stand for?
>
> "Chris Altmann" wrote:
>
>> You're probably referring to WinFS. WinFS was never going to replace
>> NTFS.
>> WinFS isn't a file system in the traditional sense, as it doesn't define
>> a
>> low level disk format or other things of that sort. It's better to think
>> of
>> it as a database in which you can store structured data, traditional
>> files,
>> and relationships between these items, and share them between programs or
>> browse and manage them via the Explorer Shell. Note that it's only meant
>> for
>> user data and files, not for stuff like the contents of c:\Windows, which
>> would still be stored and managed directly in the file system. Files
>> stored
>> in WinFS are managed by WinFS but their data streams are stored in NTFS.
>> Non-WinFS programs can access those files indirectly as if it were
>> accessing
>> normal files but cannot do so with pure WinFS database items.
>>
>> Yes, WinFS has been delayed. It has been set to ship for Vista and
>> possibly
>> XP sometime after Vista ships. There is currently a Beta 1 available for
>> XP
>> and word of Beta 2 coming next month. No word on how it will integrate
>> into
>> the Vista shell if/when it does ship.
>>
>> There is some tagging and metadata organizing capability in Vista
>> independent of WinFS, but as we are discussing in another thread here, it
>> seems to be limited to what metadata individual file formats and/or their
>> metadata handlers (IFilters) support.
>>
>> "Stan Shankman" <stantheman@visi.com> wrote in message
>> news:uQ8io1igGHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > What is up with Vista's file system?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I thought Vista was slated to have a new whiz-bang file system that was
>> > going to replace NTFS. But then I read that the new file system would
>> > not
>> > be
>> > part of Vista at its début. But that it may yet materialize with a
>> > Service-Pack or Second Edition or something like that. It's not clear
>> > to
>> > me
>> > what the status of Windows Vista disk sub-system is.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Right now, or as it will be released, is Vista using the NTFS or not?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Who can shed some light on the current state and future plans for
>> > Vista's
>> > file system?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And let me add, that Google's new online mail, employs a different
>> > mechanism
>> > for handling files. Apparently all of the files stay in the same big
>> > "folder", so to speak, and then to make each file distinct, one simply
>> > assigns "tags" to the individual files. These tags greatly assist the
>> > searching and confinement of those files. - I like the way the Google
>> > system
>> > works (but I also suspect that less sophisticated users will have
>> > difficulty
>> > in understanding how to use those tags). After I had been using the
>> > Google
>> > system for a while, I thought it would be the wave of the future. I
>> > was
>> > hopfull that Microsoft would employ a similar type scheme in Vista. For
>> > me,
>> > it solves one very difficult issue - mainly, how to have the same file
>> > in
>> > multiple locations at once without actually storing the file multiple
>> > times.
>> > Oh sure, as it is on can place a shortcut where the file is needed, but
>> > the
>> > idea of just "taging" each file with the appropriate designations
>> > really
>> > seemed to work well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As an example of how tags are useful, consider the following example:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If I want to save all "Mary" pictures, I can create a folder called
>> > "Mary"
>> > and then put all of her pictures in that folder. Likewise, I can put
>> > all
>> > "Bill" pictures in a folder called "Bill". But what if I have a picture
>> > that
>> > has both Mary and Bill in it? Which folder should it go into? With
>> > tags,
>> > one
>> > simply adds to that file the three tags; "Pictures" and "Mary" and
>> > "Bill".
>> >
>> > To me, this serves a very useful purpose and that is why I am so
>> > excited
>> > about seeing an implication of this kind of file system on a home PC.
>> > In a
>> > way I suspect, it turns the file system into one big database. Think
>> > about
>> > the possibilities of, say, hiding files? Now, individual tags can be
>> > assigned access attributes. - Files marked with the "System" tag would
>> > automatically be hidden unless the "System" tag was specifically
>> > included
>> > in
>> > the search string. The possibilities of exercising ingenuity abound.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thoughts? Comments? Anyone?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Okay, so while I'm on a roll, let me rant just a bit more:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I will share a few thoughts I have regarding the *philosophy* of an
>> > operating system, and reveal the way I feel it should be done. As it
>> > stands,
>> > a dichotomy existes in the way an operating system must work for all
>> > users -
>> > the advanced as well as the novice. Advanced users want the operating
>> > system to be more "business-like" with micro-control over every
>> > possible
>> > aspect of the computer's operation. While many people, if indeed not
>> > most,
>> > want the computer to be "easy to use" and they don't care about the
>> > details
>> > so much as just getting the job done. So too is the computer's "help
>> > system" - most users just want minimal context-sensitive "nudges" to
>> > keep
>> > them on track, while techies want their help to contain every minute
>> > detail.
>> > So, what to do? Who to cater to? You see? That is the dichotomy.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My thoughts are that you can cater to both groups by simply giving the
>> > system "modes" so that each individual User can select the mode which
>> > suits
>> > him best. My first thought was that maybe three modes would suffice.
>> > But
>> > then I got to thinking; Why not make it linear - allowing the user to
>> > smoothly adjust the complexity level? - One can easily envision a
>> > futuristic
>> > system that employs cyber-intelligence and can slowly "learn" the
>> > proficiently level of its operator. Of course many will just want to
>> > run
>> > it
>> > wide open - options are always a good thing.
>> >
>> > But now I am getting off the subject, so I will just leave it at that.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks all,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - Stan Shankman
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Then, shouldn't it be "WinVFS"?
Microsoft had plans long ago to develop a real file system to succeed NTFS
but I do not know why they ditched it.


"Alan Simpson" wrote:

> FS stands for File System, even though it's kind of a virtual file system.
> Maybe they just couldn't come up with a good name/acronym for "SQL Virtual
> File System" or whatever.
>
> "Scottg" <Scottg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> newsDEB28B5-7C20-44DA-9208-94BE5D722C57@microsoft.com...
> > "WinFS isn't a file system"??? What does the 'FS' in WinFS stand for?
> >
> > "Chris Altmann" wrote:
> >
> >> You're probably referring to WinFS. WinFS was never going to replace
> >> NTFS.
> >> WinFS isn't a file system in the traditional sense, as it doesn't define
> >> a
> >> low level disk format or other things of that sort. It's better to think
> >> of
> >> it as a database in which you can store structured data, traditional
> >> files,
> >> and relationships between these items, and share them between programs or
> >> browse and manage them via the Explorer Shell. Note that it's only meant
> >> for
> >> user data and files, not for stuff like the contents of c:\Windows, which
> >> would still be stored and managed directly in the file system. Files
> >> stored
> >> in WinFS are managed by WinFS but their data streams are stored in NTFS.
> >> Non-WinFS programs can access those files indirectly as if it were
> >> accessing
> >> normal files but cannot do so with pure WinFS database items.
> >>
> >> Yes, WinFS has been delayed. It has been set to ship for Vista and
> >> possibly
> >> XP sometime after Vista ships. There is currently a Beta 1 available for
> >> XP
> >> and word of Beta 2 coming next month. No word on how it will integrate
> >> into
> >> the Vista shell if/when it does ship.
> >>
> >> There is some tagging and metadata organizing capability in Vista
> >> independent of WinFS, but as we are discussing in another thread here, it
> >> seems to be limited to what metadata individual file formats and/or their
> >> metadata handlers (IFilters) support.
> >>
> >> "Stan Shankman" <stantheman@visi.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uQ8io1igGHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> > What is up with Vista's file system?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I thought Vista was slated to have a new whiz-bang file system that was
> >> > going to replace NTFS. But then I read that the new file system would
> >> > not
> >> > be
> >> > part of Vista at its début. But that it may yet materialize with a
> >> > Service-Pack or Second Edition or something like that. It's not clear
> >> > to
> >> > me
> >> > what the status of Windows Vista disk sub-system is.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Right now, or as it will be released, is Vista using the NTFS or not?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Who can shed some light on the current state and future plans for
> >> > Vista's
> >> > file system?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And let me add, that Google's new online mail, employs a different
> >> > mechanism
> >> > for handling files. Apparently all of the files stay in the same big
> >> > "folder", so to speak, and then to make each file distinct, one simply
> >> > assigns "tags" to the individual files. These tags greatly assist the
> >> > searching and confinement of those files. - I like the way the Google
> >> > system
> >> > works (but I also suspect that less sophisticated users will have
> >> > difficulty
> >> > in understanding how to use those tags). After I had been using the
> >> > Google
> >> > system for a while, I thought it would be the wave of the future. I
> >> > was
> >> > hopfull that Microsoft would employ a similar type scheme in Vista. For
> >> > me,
> >> > it solves one very difficult issue - mainly, how to have the same file
> >> > in
> >> > multiple locations at once without actually storing the file multiple
> >> > times.
> >> > Oh sure, as it is on can place a shortcut where the file is needed, but
> >> > the
> >> > idea of just "taging" each file with the appropriate designations
> >> > really
> >> > seemed to work well.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > As an example of how tags are useful, consider the following example:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If I want to save all "Mary" pictures, I can create a folder called
> >> > "Mary"
> >> > and then put all of her pictures in that folder. Likewise, I can put
> >> > all
> >> > "Bill" pictures in a folder called "Bill". But what if I have a picture
> >> > that
> >> > has both Mary and Bill in it? Which folder should it go into? With
> >> > tags,
> >> > one
> >> > simply adds to that file the three tags; "Pictures" and "Mary" and
> >> > "Bill".
> >> >
> >> > To me, this serves a very useful purpose and that is why I am so
> >> > excited
> >> > about seeing an implication of this kind of file system on a home PC.
> >> > In a
> >> > way I suspect, it turns the file system into one big database. Think
> >> > about
> >> > the possibilities of, say, hiding files? Now, individual tags can be
> >> > assigned access attributes. - Files marked with the "System" tag would
> >> > automatically be hidden unless the "System" tag was specifically
> >> > included
> >> > in
> >> > the search string. The possibilities of exercising ingenuity abound.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts? Comments? Anyone?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Okay, so while I'm on a roll, let me rant just a bit more:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I will share a few thoughts I have regarding the *philosophy* of an
> >> > operating system, and reveal the way I feel it should be done. As it
> >> > stands,
> >> > a dichotomy existes in the way an operating system must work for all
> >> > users -
> >> > the advanced as well as the novice. Advanced users want the operating
> >> > system to be more "business-like" with micro-control over every
> >> > possible
> >> > aspect of the computer's operation. While many people, if indeed not
> >> > most,
> >> > want the computer to be "easy to use" and they don't care about the
> >> > details
> >> > so much as just getting the job done. So too is the computer's "help
> >> > system" - most users just want minimal context-sensitive "nudges" to
> >> > keep
> >> > them on track, while techies want their help to contain every minute
> >> > detail.
> >> > So, what to do? Who to cater to? You see? That is the dichotomy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > My thoughts are that you can cater to both groups by simply giving the
> >> > system "modes" so that each individual User can select the mode which
> >> > suits
> >> > him best. My first thought was that maybe three modes would suffice.
> >> > But
> >> > then I got to thinking; Why not make it linear - allowing the user to
> >> > smoothly adjust the complexity level? - One can easily envision a
> >> > futuristic
> >> > system that employs cyber-intelligence and can slowly "learn" the
> >> > proficiently level of its operator. Of course many will just want to
> >> > run
> >> > it
> >> > wide open - options are always a good thing.
> >> >
> >> > But now I am getting off the subject, so I will just leave it at that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks all,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - Stan Shankman
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

I think one of the points discovered by Microsoft during the transition from
FAT to FAT16 to HPFS then to NTFS is that people really don't like their
file systems being messed around with unless there's something seriously
beneficial in the new toy.

The major users of large file systems are the IT shops inside large
corporations. Microsoft's other abandoned file system (an Object File
System) there's a reference to it in one of the Channel 9 videos showed
Microsoft that endusers (especially corporates) value stability over all the
fancy other things you can wish to introduce. If you don't have stability
(obviously scalability and other things are important to large disk stores)
then it doesn't matter how many widgets you have with your file system, it
isn't going to be used and likewise your operating system.

I'm sure Microsoft's going to keep throwing research dollars into finding
the more appropriate file system for those new toys we have with flash
drives getting bigger and home machines getting 500GB HDDs. Unfortunately,
File Systems seem to be one of those black arts of the computer sciences
somewhere akin to compiler writing. Everyone has an opinion of what it
should(n't) do but very few can actually put together something that
actually works.

Sam T.


"Scottg" <Scottg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5D2C981-DE9B-46BC-AA24-E123086157A6@microsoft.com...
> Then, shouldn't it be "WinVFS"?
> Microsoft had plans long ago to develop a real file system to succeed NTFS
> but I do not know why they ditched it.
>
>
> "Alan Simpson" wrote:
>
>> FS stands for File System, even though it's kind of a virtual file
>> system.
>> Maybe they just couldn't come up with a good name/acronym for "SQL
>> Virtual
>> File System" or whatever.
>>
>> "Scottg" <Scottg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> newsDEB28B5-7C20-44DA-9208-94BE5D722C57@microsoft.com...
>> > "WinFS isn't a file system"??? What does the 'FS' in WinFS stand for?
>> >
>> > "Chris Altmann" wrote:
>> >
>> >> You're probably referring to WinFS. WinFS was never going to replace
>> >> NTFS.
>> >> WinFS isn't a file system in the traditional sense, as it doesn't
>> >> define
>> >> a
>> >> low level disk format or other things of that sort. It's better to
>> >> think
>> >> of
>> >> it as a database in which you can store structured data, traditional
>> >> files,
>> >> and relationships between these items, and share them between programs
>> >> or
>> >> browse and manage them via the Explorer Shell. Note that it's only
>> >> meant
>> >> for
>> >> user data and files, not for stuff like the contents of c:\Windows,
>> >> which
>> >> would still be stored and managed directly in the file system. Files
>> >> stored
>> >> in WinFS are managed by WinFS but their data streams are stored in
>> >> NTFS.
>> >> Non-WinFS programs can access those files indirectly as if it were
>> >> accessing
>> >> normal files but cannot do so with pure WinFS database items.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, WinFS has been delayed. It has been set to ship for Vista and
>> >> possibly
>> >> XP sometime after Vista ships. There is currently a Beta 1 available
>> >> for
>> >> XP
>> >> and word of Beta 2 coming next month. No word on how it will integrate
>> >> into
>> >> the Vista shell if/when it does ship.
>> >>
>> >> There is some tagging and metadata organizing capability in Vista
>> >> independent of WinFS, but as we are discussing in another thread here,
>> >> it
>> >> seems to be limited to what metadata individual file formats and/or
>> >> their
>> >> metadata handlers (IFilters) support.
>> >>
>> >> "Stan Shankman" <stantheman@visi.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:uQ8io1igGHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >> > What is up with Vista's file system?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I thought Vista was slated to have a new whiz-bang file system that
>> >> > was
>> >> > going to replace NTFS. But then I read that the new file system
>> >> > would
>> >> > not
>> >> > be
>> >> > part of Vista at its début. But that it may yet materialize with a
>> >> > Service-Pack or Second Edition or something like that. It's not
>> >> > clear
>> >> > to
>> >> > me
>> >> > what the status of Windows Vista disk sub-system is.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Right now, or as it will be released, is Vista using the NTFS or
>> >> > not?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Who can shed some light on the current state and future plans for
>> >> > Vista's
>> >> > file system?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > And let me add, that Google's new online mail, employs a different
>> >> > mechanism
>> >> > for handling files. Apparently all of the files stay in the same big
>> >> > "folder", so to speak, and then to make each file distinct, one
>> >> > simply
>> >> > assigns "tags" to the individual files. These tags greatly assist
>> >> > the
>> >> > searching and confinement of those files. - I like the way the
>> >> > Google
>> >> > system
>> >> > works (but I also suspect that less sophisticated users will have
>> >> > difficulty
>> >> > in understanding how to use those tags). After I had been using the
>> >> > Google
>> >> > system for a while, I thought it would be the wave of the future. I
>> >> > was
>> >> > hopfull that Microsoft would employ a similar type scheme in Vista.
>> >> > For
>> >> > me,
>> >> > it solves one very difficult issue - mainly, how to have the same
>> >> > file
>> >> > in
>> >> > multiple locations at once without actually storing the file
>> >> > multiple
>> >> > times.
>> >> > Oh sure, as it is on can place a shortcut where the file is needed,
>> >> > but
>> >> > the
>> >> > idea of just "taging" each file with the appropriate designations
>> >> > really
>> >> > seemed to work well.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > As an example of how tags are useful, consider the following
>> >> > example:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > If I want to save all "Mary" pictures, I can create a folder called
>> >> > "Mary"
>> >> > and then put all of her pictures in that folder. Likewise, I can put
>> >> > all
>> >> > "Bill" pictures in a folder called "Bill". But what if I have a
>> >> > picture
>> >> > that
>> >> > has both Mary and Bill in it? Which folder should it go into? With
>> >> > tags,
>> >> > one
>> >> > simply adds to that file the three tags; "Pictures" and "Mary" and
>> >> > "Bill".
>> >> >
>> >> > To me, this serves a very useful purpose and that is why I am so
>> >> > excited
>> >> > about seeing an implication of this kind of file system on a home
>> >> > PC.
>> >> > In a
>> >> > way I suspect, it turns the file system into one big database. Think
>> >> > about
>> >> > the possibilities of, say, hiding files? Now, individual tags can be
>> >> > assigned access attributes. - Files marked with the "System" tag
>> >> > would
>> >> > automatically be hidden unless the "System" tag was specifically
>> >> > included
>> >> > in
>> >> > the search string. The possibilities of exercising ingenuity abound.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts? Comments? Anyone?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, so while I'm on a roll, let me rant just a bit more:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I will share a few thoughts I have regarding the *philosophy* of an
>> >> > operating system, and reveal the way I feel it should be done. As it
>> >> > stands,
>> >> > a dichotomy existes in the way an operating system must work for all
>> >> > users -
>> >> > the advanced as well as the novice. Advanced users want the
>> >> > operating
>> >> > system to be more "business-like" with micro-control over every
>> >> > possible
>> >> > aspect of the computer's operation. While many people, if indeed not
>> >> > most,
>> >> > want the computer to be "easy to use" and they don't care about the
>> >> > details
>> >> > so much as just getting the job done. So too is the computer's "help
>> >> > system" - most users just want minimal context-sensitive "nudges" to
>> >> > keep
>> >> > them on track, while techies want their help to contain every minute
>> >> > detail.
>> >> > So, what to do? Who to cater to? You see? That is the dichotomy.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > My thoughts are that you can cater to both groups by simply giving
>> >> > the
>> >> > system "modes" so that each individual User can select the mode
>> >> > which
>> >> > suits
>> >> > him best. My first thought was that maybe three modes would suffice.
>> >> > But
>> >> > then I got to thinking; Why not make it linear - allowing the user
>> >> > to
>> >> > smoothly adjust the complexity level? - One can easily envision a
>> >> > futuristic
>> >> > system that employs cyber-intelligence and can slowly "learn" the
>> >> > proficiently level of its operator. Of course many will just want to
>> >> > run
>> >> > it
>> >> > wide open - options are always a good thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > But now I am getting off the subject, so I will just leave it at
>> >> > that.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks all,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > - Stan Shankman
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

"Scottg" <Scottg@discussions.microsoft.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
newsDEB28B5-7C20-44DA-9208-94BE5D722C57@microsoft.com...
> "WinFS isn't a file system"??? What does the 'FS' in WinFS stand for?

FS stands for "Future Storage": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfs

Best Regards.